Open letter to Steve Kirsch: You will never get a fair debate, not even for 10 million dollars.

The psychological traps you need to understand. Everyone please send this to as many people as you can. You MUST understand why these people are broken.

Dear Steve,
I am writing this letter to you and to anyone else who needs to understand that debate with these government agencies will not work. They are immune to it, they don´t care about your facts and figures and spread sheets. This is not how their minds work.

The only thing these people understand is ridicule and power. Their minds purely work in the rhetoric. They are not driven by data; they are not aroused by the scientific method. They are driven by their “feels” and will only respond when their “feels” are threatened. This is why character assassination is the weapon of choice for the “Authoritarian Left” (the AL). This is what scares them the most.

 I ask you to kindly get this letter out to the people, if you deem it worthy, quote my Substack or not, the important part is to try and figure out why discussions with what the AL are a waste of time.

The reason why so many people on the “Left” are mentally ill is, as far as I can tell, due to the fact that they live their whole lives in a complete state of cognitive dissonance. Although they thrive on it, as their whole social being needs this, it will eventually break you, and take society with it. Here are a few psychological phenomena you need to try and grasp before you can come up with a solution on how to approach and tackle these people who are not interested in your “science” all they care about is reputation and the grift:

1. The 2 Standard Deviation abyss: “Any sufficiently advanced intellect is indistinguishable from stupidity.” – Cube Cubis

Ever been in a conversation at a cocktail bar, or on a plane trip, or in a meeting and you get the feeling that the buffoon across from you is not only not getting what you are saying, but is also thinks you´re an idiot? This is what I call the 2 StDev rule. Essentially, if your IQ is more than 2 Standard Deviations away from the person you are having a discussion with, there is a very high chance that you will both walk away thinking that the other guy is an idiot. I am sure your IQ is very high, so there is a large percentage of the population that is more than 2 StDev away from you. You might as well explain your thought processes to your pet poodle. The chasm between your intellectual ability and theirs is so high that you will never be able to communicate about a complex topic with them.

I have broken this down further into what I call the “Dunning-Cuber” effect. (Essentially Dunning-Kruger but with my twist on it). However, if the IQ gap is faaaar higher than 2StDev between you and the person you are talking to, they will likely realise that you are much more advanced in thought than them and even though they have absolutely no idea how your argument works, they will tend to believe you. This is why there is a higher propensity for very high IQ people to not be vaxxed and very low IQ people not to be vaxxed, but most mid-wits are. The high IQ see that this is far too complex to take a risk on, the mid wits think that they understand the “science” and that they are at the cutting edge of knowledge and the low IQ understand that this is all just mumbo jumbo and should be avoided.

Most of the people that work in these government organisations and think tanks are mid-wits. If they were supremely intelligent, they would almost certainly not take up this kind of job. You´re not talking the same language as them. You need to dumb it down, you need to come up with a strategy to approach these people in a way that their lower IQ can grasp and that also gets an emotional response out of them.

2. The complete lack of internal dialectic, or the openness trait: “If someone tells you they don´t believe in conspiracy theories, they´re not capable of internal dialectic”

This is different to an internal dialogue. This is an internal dialectic. This is where you are sitting on the toilet seat thinking about a complex issue and playing intellectual ping pong trying to figure out which side of the argument wins. Unfortunately, most people do not possess this skill. Even people with high IQs may not possess this ability. How many times have you been talking to someone who is obviously very smart and has a great memory, but as soon as you approach a topic that is even slightly controversial you get the “but but but the BBC said this”…….. Once they have heard information from a “reliable source” that´s it, there is no going back. Why would the government lie? They are not even able to have an internal jousting match in their head to work out if their “reliable source” makes sense or not.

The most dangerous person on the planet is someone with high IQ and no internal dialectic. This is what most politicians have. They are smart, they understand things, but God forbid you try to tell them something they´ve believed for a long time is wrong. This is why someone like Graham Hancock is completely ridiculed about his documentary on Ancient Apocalypse. Very smart people came up with ideas about how we were only nomadic hunter gatherers until about 6000 years ago. Even after the incredible discovery of Göbekli Tepe which has been proven beyond doubt to be over 12 000 years old, it will physically take the death of most of the old guard of archaeologists before the mainstream will even begin to take the younger dryas impact theory seriously.

This is why the food pyramid, which is probably the most destructive piece of propaganda ever on the health of the world (apart from probably these jabs) is still seen as gospel by many highly educated people. They literally studied that “food pyramid good” and it has stuck with them the same way that “orange man bad” has.

On the flip side, this is also the biggest disadvantage of the side of reason. If you get a very low IQ person with very high openness then they will tend to believe every conspiracy theory under the sun. These are the types of people that get invited to talk shows and to give interviews to the “main stream,” as they will be able to get some absolutely ridiculous statement out of them that is then used to tarnish everyone on the side of reason and truth. This is why you will not get a reasonable debate. They don´t care about your graphs and figures, they want a sound bite from you saying that we didn’t go to the moon because the moon is a holograph in space, and not someone who puts up a very solid argument using physics and an understanding of technology to explain why it was highly unlikely.

In a nut shell, you´re too smart for them to debate you.

3. Brick in the wall: „Hey Fauci, leave those kids alone!”

These people are a brick in a wall. The only people they have contact to are the other bricks next to them. You are a brick that is far removed from their brick. They do not care what you have to say or think as you are not next to them, you do not have exposure to the truths that they have exposure to. The only people that they will even listen to are people who have had exactly the same programming as them. This also applies to their internet use. I have honestly thought that people like Fauci must not even have access to the internet, or if they do it is completely censored, so they do not even know anything about the arguments of the other side. Do you think Fauci is even aware of these 2-foot-long rubbery clots being pulled out of bodies? or the fact that everyone is sick all the time now compared to 3yrs ago? It is possible that they don´t, so when you combine that with point 2 these people just think you´re a complete nut job.

If you try to approach these people you literally can only use information against them that they have personally been seen speaking about or writing about. You cannot even try and discredit what they have said with other data, you need to use not only their statements against them, but you need to construct an argument against them that purely uses only information that has come from the horse’s mouth. Otherwise you are completely everyone´s time.

4. Appeal to Authority: „Well if more doctors smoke Camel than any other cigarette, then who am I am say smoking is bad for you”.

This is probably the most annoying one. I am sure you have had 1000 discussions about the statistics of “dying suddenly” and get rebutted by “you are not a professor of cardiology so you don´t know what you´re talking about”. This is just a hiding mechanism. Why the hell would you need to be a professor of this and that to interpret a graph that shows blatantly obvious trends.

The double cogdis (cognitive dissonance) of this argument is that there are 2 appeals to authority that they listen to, and the first one is the appeal to authoritarian power, then academic power. This is why as well there is no point explaining to these people that such and such Nobel prize winning such and such has done this amazingly detailed study, because the only authority higher than that is their boss. They will always come back to the narrative that is pushed by the person who pays their salary. The only way around this is to find out who their number one authority is and you need to ridicule them and instigate an emotional response. This is why discussing the VAERS data is never going to work. Their boss has told them that VAERS is not accurate ( even though it was the gold standard for decades ). There is no way they will even look at it, as “my boss says it’s not accurate”.

In the case where there is no hierarchical authority and there are only “experts” to rely on, they will always choose to believe the expert that is being pushed by an “authoritative” news source, like CNN or BBC etc. The rogue cardiologist that just lost his job for telling everyone not to take the vaxx has just had a mental breakdown or is some kind of right wing conspiracy theorist.

5. Group think: “But if I say my mind I will lose all my friends”

All these people have is their reputation and standing in whatever social circles they have. They cannot express free thought even if they have the ability to think freely. Have you ever been to a party and said something as purely evil as “Carbon dioxide is plant food”. I did this back in about 2010 at a party and almost started a riot. There was not a single person there wanting to hear why I thought CO2 is plant food ( which is it ), just that I was an evil climate denier. I just picked up my stuff and got out of there. If any one of them had asked me to explain my position and offered a dialectic exchange with me they would have been ostracised from their group of friends. They are not able to say what they are thinking even if they know what they forced to say is complete BS. They are not even allowed to question the “narrative”.

This is why you get a lot of “off the record” or anonymous messages from doctors etc who tell you how bad it is. They are too scared to rock the boat, lose their income and become a pariah to their friends.

This is just a small summary of why it is a waste of time trying to debate these people. Even if you get one to debate you, they are not going to do anything but stone wall you.

Please, everyone, think about these topics when you are next talking to someone who is so strung up in the safe and effective narrative that they´re literally willing to boost every 2 months even if some of their friends and family have had a “suddenly”.

Please spread this to everyone you can, subscribe and tell your horror stories about dealing with ALs in your daily life, and I hope someone can get this to Steve.

Cube Cubis