Jeffrey Tucker’s lament 

I am not mad at Jeffrey Tucker. 

I do not wish Jeffrey Tucker ill or harm or anything except the very best.

But I am having trouble understanding Jeffrey Tucker’s lament on X today.

Presumably referring to early 2020, he said, “The turning point of all things — public trust, crime, longevity, border security, health, economic vitality, and population-wide incredulity toward all elites — was the global pandemic response. And yet, there is precious little public talk about it. I find that amazing.”

I find that amazing too. 

What I also find amazing, even more amazing than Mr. Tucker’s rejection of an idea for public talk on a platform he manages, is his and others’ acceptance that 

a) a global pandemic occurred, 

b) a pandemic declaration was warranted, and 

c) the “response” should be & can be examined without little to no consideration of what was being responded to – and whether it was in any way legitimate (versus fraudulent and/or criminal).

Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but the way I remember things, there was only a response because government asserted that a threat existed. I am still not clear what the threat was — or why it necessitated any response of any kind, let alone emergency decrees and everything that followed. 

I don’t see how anyone can say or imply that he or she cares only about a response to something without saying, “What was the something, exactly?”

And I remain perplexed by the reticence on the part of many who dissent from the official COVID narrative in some way, shape, or form to confront tough questions about the purported threat(s) in the months leading up to “the turning point”.

Perhaps there would be more “public talk” about the events if there were more encouragement and modeling of “public talk” about the facets of the COVID event that remain unresolved, unexplained, and far from settled among those who can agree what was done was wrong.