Excerpt from a Tucker Carlson interview;
For example, there is a guy, Richard Frye — he is one of the top autism researchers in the world — and he has admitted, ‘Hey, all of us top autism researchers that vaccines cause autism but we’re just not allowed to talk about it. And so Richard Frye will never publicly talk about that vaccines cause autism because if he did his funding would go away and so it is a matter of self-preservation. He basically has to remain silent and he can do his work to combat autism but he just isn’t allowed to tell the world that vaccines cause autism. But he makes a decision, and his decision is based on sort of a risk benefit.
The reasoning is; ‘If I tell the world that vaccines cause autism, I am caput in terms of being a researcher’ he’ll never get any dollars of funding again, and I can’t help my patients. They’ll take my license away. They’ll take my funding away. They’ll destroy me. I will not be able to contribute any more as to what the cure is. So he basically remains silent for self-preservation. Now if he, and all of his peers were to get together in unison and say; ‘ ‘hey vaccines cause autism. We are the 20 top researchers in the world and we’re telling you vaccines cause autism. We need to stop this (denial). We need to let people know we need to let people know of the connection. That could possibly change everything or it could result in those twenty researchers essentially being disenfranchised, being kicked out of their jobs, not being able to help autistic kids anymore and so it is a risk for them and they don’t play the risk.
Steve Kirsch
Entrepreneur/ Researcher
Now what Kirsch notes above is interesting and worth a post by itself but that will have to be done by some Medical Doctor who knows about vaccines and autism. The direction I want to take this is the sociological implications of this statement. If what Kirsch says above is true about hard science matters like the connection between vaccines and autism (and later in the interview he goes on about the connection between Covid vaccines and health related crisis after receiving the covid vaccine) then how much more true is this kind of phenomenon for matters that are likewise clearly true but are only historically substantiated and not scientifically substantiated?
There are now two long books that I know of which substantiate exhaustively, via the quotes of the Church fathers from history that Christianity and the Church has always, without reservation, embraced and taught some form of the doctrine of racial realism. Here is a link to the most recent release;
Yet, if one agrees with the Church fathers on this issue, nay, especially if one quotes the Church fathers on this issue one is a pariah in the conservative ecclesiastical community. Like the connection between vaccines and autism, the connection between kinism and Church history is indisputable and so unchallengeable.
But none of it matters. As Kirsch notes about Scientists working on autism and seeing a connection between vaccines and autism, so churchmen today dare not make a connection between church history and .ethno-nationalism without being utterly ruined.
I know of some cases where clergy are like the scientists that Kirsch describes in the quote above. They understand that kinism is the Biblical norm and what the church has believed in all times and in all places where God has granted the Church orthodoxy and yet they refuse to say that racial-realism is what God’s word teaches for fear of being destroyed. So, I get from them the assurance that they agree with me but they dare not say so publicly lest they be destroyed.
It is madness to believe that God’s Word and church history confirms something but that you dare not say out loud what God’s Word teaches for fear of the consequences. This used to just be called cowardice. I’m sure that instead the folks in question would prefer to use the word “prudence.”
“It is madness to believe that God’s Word and church history confirms something but that you dare not say out loud what God’s Word teaches for fear of the consequences.”
That was the situation just before the Protestant Reformation. It is not pompous exaggeration to say that we need a new reformation, against egalitarian-progressive liberalism.
At the beginning of the 16th century, very many thinkers must have felt that the piggish Renaissance princes who carried the title “Vicar of Christ” were not really figures whom Christendom should humbly obey, but they did not dare to say it out loud.
But the would-be new reformers must find a way that will exalt God and Christ, and not themselves or masculinity or White race.
This interesting academic article argues that the “final straw” that drew Martin Luther into open revolt against Rome (and not just a critic of some of its abuses) was becoming aware of the Renaissance scholarship that proved the fraudulent nature of the so-called “Donation of Constantine”:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Papal-Antichrist%3A-Martin-Luther-and-the-of-Whitford/b1f4397dec763b4caa4a4db6ecf0e008dbd50a05
But alas, things are interconnected. If you bring up pre-modern concepts of Christian racialism, then you logically will also have to bring up other things that embarrass modern Egalitarian ethos in significant ways as well, like female suffrage for example (Robert Dabney’s views on this matter are well known).
It is pretty much a package deal – if you loudly and explicitly reject Equality, you declare war on the whole modern world. And few people have the gumption to do that.
Your comment got me curious about Dabney. The top search result was an 1851 article titled, “Women’s Rights Women.”
I can’t believe how modern and we’ll written that is. Woe to us if that is embarrassing.
Thanks for mentioning him.
Bring it.