Substack Writers' Rabbit Hole

down the rabbit hole... ~once again.

I believe I have seen references on my favorite Substack pages to going through a “looking glass,” or, alternatively, “down a rabbit hole.”

Substack writers are aware of the rabbit holes. But one may also note that sometimes they make rabbit holes of their own. I notice that in addition to the rabbit holes of the outside world, or “reality,” Substack writers create their own. This is a self-generated rabbit hole phenomenon.

We endlessly talk about our own theories. There may be good reasons to stay in your own world, but also we are afraid to confront these people, whom we say are doing wrong. So maybe it is feels difficult to confront them. Okay. But, on the other hand this entails putting oneself in the position of seeing the mainstream or the establishment as the enemy. So, we forget it is possible, I don’t know how, but it is possible to talk. But we, the Substack conspiracy rebels, do not talk to them. If those Pfizer reports are so damning, and that’s what Naomi Wolf (whom I had some interest in, for awhile, going back a few years before there was her new interest in these alleged vaccine harms) claims, and says they are, then her team should delegate someone to aggressively inquire with Pfizer. Aggressively, but politely, they might ask the Pfizer people why they did this? One will need to ask in the right way, but I am in favor of trying. Maybe it is difficult, I will grant you that. But there is a normal professional process here isn’t there? So, it is a normal thing. This is just the process of human communication. I don’t think the critics should just squander social resources like that. Once that sort of inquiry is made, Pfizer’s response (including potential shut down of response) will be edifying. Those answers might be as interesting as the “adverse event” reports are but instead we button ourselves into our own arguments. Why is it we never do talk to the “enemy”? That sort of interaction with the actual persons in the Pfizer company is not impossible. So, all the “rabbit holes” are not the world’s. We create them ourselves. We create rabbit holes as well as explore those that already exist. You create corners, holes of your own to get lost into.

Instead of trying to clear up the lines of responsibility the radical outsider-critics like Wolf are sensationalizing the Pfizer reports. The Wolf team seems to have the preferred response that, having got a hold of the documents, they create a wall between the critics and those criticized. I want to see a closer inquiry with Pfizer. I know you all think they should be shot. I know these are the ones you are warning us about. Let’s talk to them, then. Hard? Sure, it is hard. I would want to know what those Pfizer scientists have to say, when confronted with one or two studies. After all, these are the technicians or scientists responsible for the studies. Would they give responsible answers? Even if they do not, an attempt at dialogue should be made. And I am interested in Pfizer whistle-blowers. How many Pfizer whistle-blowers are there? Do we have a list? How many are there? Two or three, or dozens? Who is willing to talk about what Pfizer is up to? Why don’t the two sides engage more? Too difficult? But if you favor democracy that is what you would do. As I said, maybe Pfizer’s people will not do it, and that would itself be a significant result. But also, I do not think Pfizer is the only one making reality difficult to trace or sending other people down the rabbit hole. You too. The critics are creating rabbit holes of they own. The critic side does not weigh all the evidence any more than Pfizer did.

That things become “rabbit holes” may be traced to not having any one standard, which means there is no clear authority. When we go down the rabbit hole it never ends. Even if the standard is not very good, a society is more stable when it has a standard. But there is a crisis of authority now, with no flag to rally ‘round and when there is no authority, which is to say no designated “truth,” everything becomes an opinion — things get diffused. Persons have all sorts of opinions. There used to be a “mainstream” view and there no longer is. Everything will be a rabbit hole unless we learn to talk to one another.

In the end, you have two rabbit holes. One is the society’s making. Others are freshly minted ones, created by the radicals or critics.