38 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

I am offering to have a conversation of all parties on my podcast, if there is desire. With love and respect and intellectual integrity. I find this new schism heartbreaking and more dangerous than most other things. it's not like we don't have a big monster to fight together, in whatever way makes sense to each of us. One thing we cannot afford is in-fighting. We can't afford it, simple as that. We can't afford it. I wrote the story about about an earlier in-fighting in the freedom community, I stand by it. We can't afford it. Everybody should talk.

https://tessa.substack.com/p/unity

Expand full comment

I'm with you. It's heartbreaking. The ball seems to be in the Breggins' court, as it seems Dr. Desmet is open to discussion.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Sep 5, 2022
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Early on, Fauci's friend and colleague Dr. Ian Lipkin, got covid and called a friend in China. He was told HCQ or plasma from someone who had it were working. Lipkin went on HCQ early, within a few days of getting sick and going downhill, and very soon after starting HCQ, began turning around. You bet Fauci knew this.

Expand full comment

Excellent points and is there any doubt that evil or Satanic forces are at work in the world and manifest in such as Fauci and his fellow psychopaths? such explanations as mass formation and psychosis may be nothing more than the effects remaining after evil has taken root and manifested itself throughout society; the masses most affected are those who compromised their beliefs and sacrificed their identities and became accomplices to the very demonic forces they claimed to be fighting; willingly or unwillingly when one sells one's soul to the devil , there will be a reckoning coming due as the devil will certainly demand payment for his work.

Expand full comment

There is evil in this world and it is called pride, greed, power, hate, envy......and undiagnosed and unchecked expands in perpetuity.

Expand full comment

Fauci dismissed Hydroxychloroquine because there wasn't enough profit in it. In order to enable the use of new profitable drugs it had to be shown there wasn't anything else.

Expand full comment

Fauci discredited/banned HCQ and later Ivermectin because you can't get an EUA for a vaccine if there's a readily available, effective treatment / cure. This was coordinated worldwide.

Expand full comment

A sincere discussion in good faith between these parties to aid fuller understanding is not ‘in fighting.’

Taking a shot and then refusing to engage may be, however.

Expand full comment

I agree that a sincere discussion in good faith is not in-fighting, it is the only format available to human beings to resolve conflict. It has to happen between all parties though, otherwise it's a courthouse and not a sincere discussion! And in courthouses, everybody is interested in winning. While what we need to an even-headed approach with truth is mind, and as void of personal branding as possible.

Expand full comment

We are paying for the ills of how we have all been raised - to seek victory at any cost, as opposed to wisdom and peace. And I hope this conflict is resolved because nothing good is going to happen from pointing fingers at each other. We are looking at a literal battle of our lifetime. Not the time for egos!!!!!

Expand full comment

From what I see here, the ‘finger pointing’ - as in taking a shot and then refusing to engage in good faith - is coming from one side only, no?

Expand full comment

it seems like Mattias is more eager to talk than Ginger, and I hope it gets resolved. I have hope for that, it is far more productive than "winning," because, if the tyrants have their way, the winner and the loser will end up in the same digital prison, or camp, for that matter.

Now, I am agnostic of the participants' vaccination status because I believe it's less relevant than their actions right now. I personally don't judge anyone on their past choices, what matters is where people are now.

Expand full comment

How does their vax status figure into this? (Or did I miss something?)

Expand full comment

Oh that's funny. You said "take a shot," and in another conversation about this, the topic of taking the injection came up as an opinion invalidating factor, so I thought you were talking about the injection. There is always humor even in the most heated debate!!! Thank you for that.

Expand full comment

👍🙂

Expand full comment

Yes, you're seeing the situation correctly.

Expand full comment

Did you read Desmet's book?

Expand full comment

I listened to it on Audible. What does reading and/or listening to Desmet's book have to do with the fact that the Breggins published a serialized critique of the book while simultaneously refusing to engage in conversation w/Desmet?

Expand full comment

I wondered that as well.

Expand full comment

How did you feel about the discussion of "conspiracy thinking"?

Expand full comment

Perhaps you could/should make your point rather than answering a question with a question?

Expand full comment

Why? What makes you think I'm making a "point"?

I'm curious to know what people who perceive this as an "attack" thought about that passage.

Expand full comment

No? Yes.

Expand full comment

Did you read the book?

Expand full comment

Absolutely, Tessa!

Expand full comment

I think we’re in agreement on that, T.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Sep 16, 2022
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Excellent comment, Jim

Expand full comment

Given Kirsch’s extraordinary stack piece today, might it not be more productive for both these parties to explain how each of their perspectives best addresses the revelations he describes?

Expand full comment

Absolutely!

Expand full comment

Here’s where I agree with you, T, but in a slightly different way: what I think our side could do much better is organize our rockstars into a group around different issues if attack - rather than have everyone pursue their own thread (albeit brilliantly). What we lack is a team-manager/coordinator, so perhaps you can fulfill that role 🙂

Expand full comment

Yes. And on as many podcasts as possible. But the best method will be to have moderator and all guests in the room in person.

Expand full comment

Absolutely. Having everyone in the same room would be ideal. Before the pandemic, I used to host in-person, offline debates between people in great disagreement with each other. There is a reason why in-person and offline works the best. It's most relaxing for everyone and makes it less of a courthouse and more of a sincere conversation. But things have changed after 2020, the whole physical thing is screwed up, and we are used to watching everything online, so we can work with what we have...

Expand full comment

Cordiality seems to be better when in person.

Expand full comment

Without a doubt!!

Expand full comment

Agreed. Thank you for offering a place to fix the schism.

Expand full comment

Beautifully expressed, Tessa Lena!!! Thank you for your healthy and inspired observation, and for having the courage and desire to DO SOMETHING to help us all WAKE UP. I have been seeing more and more in-fighting lately; all motivated by narrow obsessive view points!

Expand full comment