Philosophy of my COVID Journalism

Freedom to believe Freedom to speak Freedom to choose

I have been reminded a few times in the last few days of the philosophy of my COVID journalism. In particular, a rather well-known professor of mathematics despondently shared this with me as a sign that COVID idiocy still rules supreme among the “elite”. I’ve also had a nice email exchange with a subscriber who seems to have a challenging family who think they know better and wanted some ammunition to fight them with.

Well, this is my response.

In the early days, indeed, it was all about proving I/we were right and we needed to convince as many as people as possible to avoid a human catastrophe.

But, for well over a year now, my position has been one of being an independent, evidence-based source of information for those who want it and only them.

• I am not interested in winning arguments.

• I am not interested in debunking pro-narrative analyses.

• I am not interested in “converting” normies.

• I am not interested in saving humanity (or even society).

None of this matters *as long as* we have freedom of choice. I wish all readers of my Substack the freedom to choose whether they believe what I write and act accordingly or choose not to.

The only thing that we should fight for is freedom of choice. An obvious precursor to this is freedom of speech.

And that is something worth highlighting if you do happen to find yourself in some form of debate that you do want to pursue. If one side of any narrative is censored by those with the power to censor, if those with a dissenting or even simply a different view from those who have the power to persecute them do so, then perhaps that should be the focus of your attention before you start to debate the issue itself.

Once I resolved to this position, my COVID journalism has been much easier. Being “permanently” deplatformed by Twitter three times helped as well! Twitter’s toxicity comes from those whose only interest is to debunk and because there is a lack of intellectual integrity there, when they cannot “win” an argument on merit, they have to stoop to ad hominem attack.

So, this is why I write and the essence of what I want to share. Whether you use it for your personal satisfaction or to “engage” with others in whatever form, that is your choice too.

But personally, I do this for my own satisfaction alone. I trust no-one more than I trust myself because I have been blessed with good analytical skills. I use these skills to protect myself from all manner of risks and harms and, more importantly, to protect my children too.

Those who know me, know that this is a very serious undertaking so I trust you will consider this if you are stuck between the insights and conclusions of my analyses and those from the official agencies when they are opposed.

Aside from all this, I had a lovely afternoon on Friday, teaching geography to my 8-year old daughter’s class. What a refreshing change to have an audience of keen, truth-seeking minds, not yet polluted by the dogma of political society!

---

P.S. I also do it in order to have a public record of what was known and when, just in case any of the stupid ones are stupid enough to call for an amnesty because their stupidity blinded them to it!