My Substack and It's Threat to Professionalism

How a devout loyalty and confidence in self-publishers threatens our social order

Aug 26, 2023

This is my first essay for Substack, and though I am happy to be in a space where I can freely express my thoughts, opinions, and observations of the world, for the past few years I have borne witness to the dangerous yet fresh wave of new contrarianism. New contrarianism is a school of thought that challenges most, if not all public and professional institutions from universities to government agencies to private funds held by elites. Many of us are guilty of rallying to the cause of new contrarianism even if we do so subliminally, this is attributable to the damaged trust of our social institutions. Through this essay I will note my observations and opinions of this problem while attempting to be true to the reality of our predicament. I hope by the end of this reading, you the reader, will agree that though our institutions’ and professionals’ fidelity has been compromised there are no safe alternatives, rather we must begin the arduous process of repairing and fortifying our institutions inasmuch as they can regain our trust and return to reliably dosing our information diets.

First I would like to note some statistics to help highlight the points I am trying to make. As of 2023, there are roughly 8 billion people to be living on this planet, many of you know this, but have you ever considered the chilling fact that the total number of homosapiens to have ever been is only 117 billion. This means 6.83 percent of all the people that have ever been are being right now. What is the point? Homosapiens have been around for 300,000 years: mating, dying, and proliferating, yet now the Earth holds the greatest density of them yet and we have no reason to believe- other than the occasional societal blip of people deciding not to repopulate- that this proliferation will cease. With 8 billion people roaming Earth trying to make sense of life, and with more information at the 8 billion’s fingertips than ever imagined, existential risk makes me confident in my next statement. It matters greatly what the 8 billion believe.

Though I do not believe truth has ever been worth less than it is now, I do believe that with such evolved technology and a high density of people, the volatility of our social order teeters on a much more precarious fulcrum. Thousands- hell hundreds- of years ago it didn’t quite matter what your city’s or village’s local lunatic believed; you could hear their baffling proclamation, roll your eyes, and carry on with your day. There was no fear that the lunatic arguing that condoms go against God’s divine order or that slavery was beneficial to the slaves (I wish this was a more archaic point yet it is a legitimate belief held by elected officials in Florida)1 was beaming these ideas to a magical device in your son’s or daughter’s hands. However, this is what is happening today and on a much more aggressive and exponential scale. To make matters worse, there is good reason to believe that all of us have contributed to proliferation of deleterious and idiotic ideas to some degree in our information landscape. We as simple apes have become accustomed to sharing information and data bits without a modicum of investigation almost involuntarily at this point. We retweet a post about how Covid targets minorities disproportionately2 or how Chinese space lasers are causing the Maui fires in August of 20233, not having the faintest clue of the metaphysical impacts we are creating. I can recall back in April of 2020 during the birth of Covid 19, I watched an exciting and truly concerning trailer to a new movie titled Plandemic4, a documentary ‘exposing’ the truth about Covid and the bad faith actors in the government and private medical centers. When I reflect back on watching that trailer, I did not think of Covid as a political issue nor did I have any idea of the controversial war of ideas that would spawn from it. Needless to say I thought the trailer looked gripping, exhilarating, and well made; I proceeded to share it on many platforms, unbeknownst to me that it was a highly debunked, unprofessional, crackpot concoction of far-right misinformation. It was not until about a year later I realized I was enticed by the sexy allure of new contrarianism.

Second, we all must confront the growing, and well earned distrust in social institutions. As I sit here and write this, there is still no confirmed origin story for Covid 19. The ‘lab-leak theory’ was met with harsh criticism for three years by many people left of center, however as of recent updates in the reliable information landscape, this theory is not so exotic, and is in fact a prominent theory for the origin of Covid thanks to the work of Matt Ridley and Alina Chan and their book Viral5. I am not so concerned with the true origin of Covid (although if it is anthropological I would like to know of any malicious intent), but rather I am ashamed of our institutions and general public for criticising and demonizing anyone questioning the origin; especially now that the Wuhan lab is not ruled out of possible birthing sites for the virus. In defence of institutions, most if not many of the individuals arguing for a lab-leak theory were also demanding a lot more accusatory cargo be added to their claims such as malicious intent by American officials, Chinese aggression to America, or an excuse for the liberal left to exercise control over the public through use of government mandated lockdowns. With so much brain-dead conspiracies being associated with this theory, was it safe to give it wiggle room? My response is unrealistic but stays true to what the heart of legacy and major media says to stand for: All legacy and major media should have confronted the possibility of lab-leak theory together while also using restrictive language for far reaching conspiracies. It is the job of these media conglomerates not to maintain a cosmetic and appealing image, but an organic and in-your-face-with-the-facts demour, regardless of political affiliation. If all media confronted the theory (and it always has been just a theory), this would not be such a partisan topic yet as I write this, The Guardian’s article on Ridley and Chan’s book notes Matt Ridley for his questions- QUESTIONS- regarding climate change which appears to place him in the pool of all the far-right climate change deniers! I concede that the author of the article, Mark Honigsbaum, did write a well constructed document, but his dispositions to those holding contrarian views gleans right of the page and into my criticism. Although I am a major critic of our society’s impact on the environment, and although I gestate a malignant disgust in climate change deniers, it is despite my disgust that I acknowledge simply that climate change, and Ridley’s views on it, have nothing to do with Covid and his book and do not belong anywhere in the article. I do not identify Ridley and Chan with new contrarianism, quite the opposite, as I feel their research was well conducted and their arguments well defended. It is critical to note that even they themselves do not argue for a lab-leak theory, but rather give it more potential.

I want to present another specific case of why trust in social institutions has been lost but I shall migrate away from Covid examples and rather settle on a case brought to light by Matt Taibbi. I take express interest in the case, and I concede I channel a major bias in it as well, as this case led to a string of misinterpreted clips of one of my greatest influences, Sam Harris and his subsequent online crucifixion. The case is that of the Twitter Files, a convoluted and multifaceted moral and ethical dilemma. Matt Taibbi exercised outstanding journalism and revealed that Twitter (and many other major news platforms) were suppressing information and shadowbanning individuals in regards to Hunter Biden’s laptop. When Twitter found out about the skeletons in Hunter Biden’s closest that would be revealed to the world, they feared it would jeopardize the 2020 election and give Donald Trump more ammunition. In turn, they suppressed the story and went on a digital genocide, cleansing their platform of anyone promoting the story. Many of my conservative counterparts might have cringed when I labeled this story as an ethical dilemma, but the dilemma falls on us, the people who realize the danger Donald Trump poses to America, her allies, and democracy as a whole. So the dilemma faced by Twitter is this: share the story and allow organic journalism to flourish, or suppress it and contribute to the protection of the republic. There are some non sequiturs here: there is no proof that the releasing of the story would guarantee Donald Trump’s election nor is suppressing journalism an attribute of a well functioning republic in the first place. I do not want to become bogged in this topic, but rather I want to reveal a case where a major institution suppressed truthful information from the public. But what can’t be lost sight of, and this is where I offer a very gracious ‘pardon’ to Twitter is the why of their actions. In hindsight and upon reflection of what our country and its media should look like I believe the story should have been released as I believe- I hope- the country knew that Trump could not stay in office. But if you were to place me in Jack Dorsey’s seat, and hand me the button, I can’t say for sure that I wouldn’t press the button to silence the story. Regardless, this is yet another one of thousands of cases of major institutions acting contrary to the image of major media.

I use your time to look at these two cases to give prudence my next statement. It is despite these instances that we cannot allow new contrarianism to replace our major institutions. Recall earlier the figures I provided regarding our current population, 8 billion people, and how the 8 billion is navigating the information landscape. Who in their right mind believes that any single non-professional should be allowed to claim the title ‘journalist’ (or the real concerning one is ‘self-journalist’) and begin dispensing unvetted information to the rest of the 8 billion. You see, this self proclaimed journalism is what creates documents like Plandemic, Pizzagate, and Alex Jones’s shameful Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove6, and these crackpot ‘documents’ produce nothing more than unwarranted fear, polarization, distrust, and anger. More so, these documents are all done under the guise of ‘I’m just asking questions’. This is the motto at the heart of new contrarianism; anytime a new contrarian is proven to be a fraud, he/she can cover themselves by saying they’re just innocently asking questions. But one would have to be brain dead to see that these ‘questions’ are anything but; they are rather bold and defaming claims that merely have a question mark at the end. Take the post made by Charlie Kirk on July 24, 2023 about Tafari Campbell, the personal chef of Barack Obama who served him (Obama) at the White House and left with the Obamas to be their personal sous chef after the term. Campbell was found dead in the waters near the Obama’s residence, and I will personally concede that something seems rather strange about his death, but what Charlie Kirk posted took an innocent suspicion and created a disgusting accusation that the Obama’s killed Campbell. Kirk’s post caters to the Obama hating new contrarians and any reading of the comments exposes why Kirk made such a post. Of course Kirk did not personally say that he believes Obama is linked to the death, but his commentators certainly do, and he makes no effort to denounce these ideas. Mind you, a simple set of questions reveals the insanity of this claim (the fact I feel the need to list these points pains me)

If Campbell was so close to the Obama’s what could he have done to warrant a murder, would he not have been involved in the Obama/Clinton crime syndicate?
If every president is granted secret service details after their term that would mean the government is well aware of this murder and probably contributed, so why in the hell would local law enforcement and emergency response be able to get to the body?
How was such a murder done by the elaborate and intricate Obama/Clinton crime syndicate done so sloppily? They didn’t think to make the body disappear via acid or incineration?

This is a textbook case of new contrarianism, because when the dust settles, Charlie can just shrug his shoulders and say ‘I was just asking questions’. For the sake of this essay I want to draw attention to what these kinds of posts do to the intellectual discourse of society. If you could imagine an individual who is not familiar with Charlie Kirk (or anyone posting these ludicrous ideas) and they were to see they have: A large following base, meetings with high ranking public officials, the title of journalist or commentator, and they claim to ‘appeal to the you and your interests’, you might just be fooled into believing they’re right! These rather innocent individuals who are taken in to these camps develop not just distrust, but anger and hostility to those opposite of them in philosophy. Need I remind everyone that Edgar Welsh fell into the trap of believing the Pizzagate theory and (rightfully so if the story was true) went to the pizza shop with a gun, fired it, and demanded to know where the child sex slaves were being held while pointing the gun at the workers7. This is what happens when we give these stories oxygen, Welsh, who regrets falling into the Q-anon camp and served four years in prison, acted just as he should have if the story were true. But with new contrarians the stories, let me rephrase that, the ‘questions’ they ask are seldom grounded in any semblance of reality.

So how do we reclaim the territory lost? Many people who confide in new contarians claim they are left with no option as conventional media has proven its distrust. No doubt there is a problem, and no doubt criticism of our institutions is warranted-no, necessary. To this I offer a comforting statement, most of the instances of malpractice in our institutions (though unjustified) can be explained. The Twitter Files for example produced an ethical dilemma; it was not obvious that this random laptop that somehow landed in Rudy Giuliani’s hands right before the 2020 election was NOT some article of Russian interference. Or take the lableak theory for Covid, it is tempting to suppress the story because most people arguing for a lableak hold radical conspiracy theories that do not need more oxygen. Take the infamous instance of the CDC claiming that the vaccines would substantially reduce transmission rates, come to find they only reduce it by a noticeable but non-equivalent degree. It goes without saying that taking the vaccine does help protect and fight the virus, but how do you persuade the public to participate when you have a tsunami of ‘journalists’ and new contrarians claiming that the government is maliciously using the vaccine to enact a New World Order? I am not claiming that the CDC knowingly lied about transmission statistics, but rather they possibly over emphasized (maybe even subliminally) the benefits of the vaccine.

As I said, these are not justified cases but are rather explained cases, we can disagree with the final decision but can agree there was a discussion to be had. But I believe one way we can regain trust in our institutions is by eliminating the threats posed by new contrarians who threaten the impact of rather honest and true stories. We must criticise and avoid sharing/platforming unprofessionals on professional matters. Another way we can improve trust in our institutions is by criticising them more. The illiberal left worships these organizations as if they were deities, and I beleive they do this not due to the fidelity of the institutions themselves, but rather by professing undying loyalty to these institutions, they view it as a jab to the deranged conservatives, typical paristan warfare. The problem is, this long standing war has been moved off the battlegrounds of philosophy, and onto the divine ground of ‘truth’, a sacred ground that should be left out of the war. Media and institutions need to address the partisan war and pledge loyalty to being strictly apartisan, this means a radical rebranding of institutions such as The Guardian, The New York Times, and NPR. I have generally enjoyed reading these pages and I personally enjoy BBC, but these outlets have an overabundance of liberal commentators, and though I personally align more with the left, it goes against the purpose of these institutions to only provide left-leaning news. The saddest fall I have observed is that of Vice News. Growing up I found the Vice documentaries to be amazing, consumable, and informative. One of the most powerful documentaries I have ever seen was Vice’s This is What Winning Looks Like8 which documented the situation in Afghanistan regarding us establishing a self sustaining country for our departure. Now you can expect from Vice brain worm infested articles like ‘The Weirdest Sex-Related PR Pitches I Got as a Reproductive Rights Reporter’9 or ‘A ‘Frozen War’ in Europe Threatens Sex, Abortion and LGBTQ Rights’10. I should also note that I just noticed that Vice now has a ‘horoscope’ tab on the top menu of their page- THE TOP MENU11! Oh how the mighty fall, I will miss Vice and their truly amazing journalism, but without criticism coming from more liberals, Vice will continue to be the ‘basic bitch’ of media. If the followers (particularly the liberals) of these outlets, including legacy media, were to criticize and demand a return to true journalism, we could move forward in a direction that reunites us with reliable and honest media.

One thing is certain while we move forward, trust needs to be returned to these institutions but not without a sharper eye of criticism. But one thing that should not, I argue cannot stand is the self published artificial journalism on podcast, Substack, and self published Amazon books. Without proper credentials and a value placed on professionalism, then everyone can be an expert, and if the word of a PhD holding neuroscientist is challenged by a 19 year old ‘just asking questions’ and that 19 year old gains leverage via clickbait, where will that take our society? As our information landscape becomes more diluted with bull-shit articles, I cannot say I am not fearful of our democracy and public discourse. But a firm studying of history reveals the good of the people tends to reign victorious, but there is fear that the age we live in is far too different and volatile to that of our past. I encourage you the reader to assess your own loyalties and fidelities, channel them not to philosophies, but to realities. We need a radical change in our media outlets, and a new war on new contrarianism. For the sake of our country, democracy, and our intellectual wellbeing, we must lead the charge for the 8 billion and their right to knowledge.

Veridical

Discussion about this post