What is the "Middle Ground Scramble?" Bret Weinstein explains: "So you get a bunch of people in the middle engaged in a game that I call the "middle ground scramble," where they are now going to scold the fringe. Oh, those people, yes, the pandemic didn't turn out to... be what we thought, but those people on the fringe, they actually were crazy. And then they scold the mainstream. Yes, we can all agree that out of an abundance of caution, things were done that in retrospect, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They scold both sides and they ascend because the vast number of people who wants to acknowledge that something bad happened without empowering the fringe that they demonized will empower these people in the middle. And the problem, the reason I say this is a tragedy, is that the "middle ground scramblers" do not have a track record that tells you that they actually know anything that would allow them to avoid this the next time. So by promoting them, we effectively guarantee that it will happen again.show more

@BretWeinstein And who controls the mainstream?

@BretWeinstein Sounds an awful lot like Konstantin Kisin if you ask me.

@BretWeinstein In a panic stampede… a remnant will choose to not follow the heard off the cliff… Sometimes being a laggard is the design for survival. Kinda like the Amish and their autism numbers. Small groups that think for themselves and don’t follow the danger of the panic.

Early on when we knew absolutely nothing but that Chinese authorities were building earthen ramps on roads around Wuhan I was taking measures to deal with surface contamination. Disinfectant, PPE, UV-C sterilizer at the office, etc. When it became clear it was an airborne respiratory virus mainly risky for immunocompromised I set all that stuff aside for future needs. Many folks didn’t respond to the new data and locked into a single response pattern which was absurd.

@BretWeinstein Ah yes The Umpires of Reasonable Discourse (T.U.R.Ds)

Brilliant observation. It's as if these moderate "academic" types want to avoid looking bad optically by presenting themselves as the most rational voices in the room. Yet, in doing so, they completely avoid taking any firm stance against the new "bad thing" being pushed on us—precisely the kind of stance that's required to properly deter it. "We'll all get vaccinated, but we disagree with it." "We oppose forever wars, but this one may or may not be justified." These kinds of positions—ambiguous and noncommittal—either lead directly to continuously serving the bad outcome or fail to stop it, followed only by a mild acknowledgment of honest intellectual error after the damage is done. But how does that actually protect us? How does it help us change course, when we continue to entertain the establishment’s ideas as “maybe good” or “maybe bad”? By this point, we know they’re bad actors. The time for polite debate is over. They’ve rightfully lost all credibility and deserve zero trust until there is monumental reform within our government.

@BretWeinstein Hi Bret. In Europe we often call them the “extreme center”.

@BretWeinstein Late adopters to common sense is a hard pill to swallow I’m sure.

@BretWeinstein Well said.

@BretWeinstein You're playing the Hegelian Dialectic to sheepdog the center. We DO know that Nuremberg was a sham. We know a lot of other things you dedicate your life to covering up.