I’ll start with the weaknesses because those can be staggering. Inability to trust without knowing a person really, really well is a big one. I might trust a person with my life and my wallet and bank account before I trust that person with my heart. This can be a serious problem in therapy but if you want to get close to an INTJ you need to understand this very important difference.
Part of the reason for this distrust is that:
- INTJ’s feelings are so sensitive and they don’t like getting hurt any more than anyone else. Yet they do get hurt really deeply so easily.
- navigating relationships is like walking into a forest blind. INTJ’s know that one wrong step is going to get them hurt badly but they haven’t a clue how to prevent it.
As for strength, their biggest strength in relationships is loyalty to those who do finally prove themselves trustworthy and earn their trust. I read that all the time. Not that the INTJ is likely to make a verbal statement that “You have earned my trust.” However, if they express disappointment in you, you can be pretty sure you made it into the inner circle or very close to it. Otherwise, they would not bother; they’d just decide, “This person isn’t worth my time and effort,” and move on, ignoring you.
The expression of disappointment is an effort to solve a problem, and most of all, to save the relationship. If you want better methods of solving relationship problems you may have to coach us in the exact method you prefer. But don’t do the coaching on the spot before you’re back in this person’s good graces. Remember those sensitive feelings that are shown only to you and a select few other trusted individuals.
If Private Platforms Use Government Guidelines to Police Content, is that State Censorship?
YouTube’s decision to demonetize podcaster Bret Weinstein raises serious questions, both about the First Amendment and regulatory capture
Matt Taibbi 22 hr ago 498 742
Just under three years ago, Infowars anchor Alex Jones was tossed off Facebook, Apple, YouTube, and Spotify, marking the unofficial launch of the “content moderation” era. The censorship envelope has since widened dramatically via a series of high-profile incidents: Facebook and Twitter
- suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story,
- Donald Trump’s social media suspension,
- Apple and Amazon’s kneecapping of Parler, the
- removal of real raw footage from the January 6th riots, and others.
This week’s decision by YouTube to demonetize podcaster Bret Weinstein belongs on that list, and has a case to be put at or near the top, representing a different and perhaps more unnerving speech conundrum than those other episodes.
Profiled in this space two weeks ago, Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying — both biologists — host the podcast DarkHorse, which by any measure is among the more successful independent media operations in the country. They have two YouTube channels, a main channel featuring whole episodes and livestreams, and a “clips” channel featuring excerpts from those shows.
Between the two channels, they’ve been flagged 11 times in the last month or so. Specifically, YouTube has honed in on two areas of discussion it believes promote “medical misinformation.” The first is the potential efficacy of the repurposed drug ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment. The second is the third rail of third rails, i.e. the possible shortcomings of the mRNA vaccines produced by companies like Moderna and Pfizer.
Weinstein, who was also criticized for arguing the lab-leak theory before conventional wisdom shifted on that topic, says YouTube’s decision will result in the loss of “half” of his and Heying’s income. However, he says, YouTube told him he can reapply after a month.
YouTube’s notice put it as follows: “Edit your channel and reapply for monetization… Make changes to your channel based on our feedback. Changes can include editing or deleting videos and updating video details.”
“They want me to self-censor,” he says. “Unless I stop broadcasting information that runs afoul of their CDC-approved talking points, I’ll remain demonetized.”
Weinstein’s travails with YouTube sound like something out of a Star Trek episode, in which the Enterprise crew tries and fails to communicate with a malevolent AI attacking the ship. In the last two weeks, he emailed back and forth with the firm, at one point receiving an email from someone who identified himself only as “Christopher,” indicating a desire to set up a discussion between Weinstein and various parties at YouTube.
Over the course of these communications, Weinstein asked if he could nail down the name and contact number of the person with whom he was interacting. “I said, ‘Look, I need to know who you are first, whether you’re real, what your real first and last names are, what your phone number is, and so on,” Weinstein recounts. “But on asking what ‘Christopher’s’ real name and email was, they wouldn’t even go that far.” After this demand of his, instead of giving him an actual contact, YouTube sent him a pair of less personalized demonetization notices.
As has been noted in this space multiple times, this is a common theme in nearly all of these stories, but Weinstein’s tale is at once weirder and more involved, as most people in these dilemmas never get past the form-letter response stage. YouTube has responded throughout to media queries about Weinstein’s case, suggesting they take it seriously.
YouTube’s decision with regard to Weinstein and Heying seems part of an overall butterfly effect, as numerous other figures either connected to the topic or to DarkHorse have been censured by various platforms. Weinstein guest Dr. Robert Malone, a former Salk Institute researcher often credited with helping develop mRNA vaccine technology, has been suspended from LinkedIn, and Weinstein guest Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has had his appearances removed by YouTube. Even Satoshi Ōmura, who won the Nobel Prize in 2015 for his work on ivermectin, reportedly had a video removed by YouTube this week.
There are several factors that make the DarkHorse incident different from other major Silicon Valley moderation decisions, including the fact that the content in question doesn’t involve electoral politics, foreign intervention, or incitement. The main issue is the possible blurring of lines between public and private censorship.
When I contacted YouTube about Weinstein two weeks ago, I was told, “In general, we rely on guidance from local and global health authorities (FDA, CDC, WHO, NHS, etc) in developing our COVID-19 misinformation policies.”
The question is, how active is that “guidance”? Is YouTube acting in consultation with those bodies in developing those moderation policies? As Weinstein notes, an answer in the affirmative would likely make theirs a true First Amendment problem, with an agency like the CDC not only setting public health policy but also effectively setting guidelines for private discussion about those policies. “If it is in consultation with the government,” he says, “it’s an entirely different issue.”
Asked specifically after Weinstein’s demonetization if the “guidance” included consultation with authorities, YouTube essentially said yes, pointing to previous announcements that they consult other authorities, and adding, “When we develop our policies we consult outside experts and YouTube creators. In the case of our COVID-19 misinformation policies, it would be guidance from local and global health authorities.”
Weinstein and Heying might be the most prominent non-conservative media operation to fall this far afoul of a platform like YouTube. Unlike the case of, say, Alex Jones, the moves against the show’s content have not been roundly cheered. In fact, they’ve inspired blowback from across the media spectrum, with everyone from Bill Maher to Joe Rogan to Tucker Carlson taking notice.
“They threw Bret Weinstein off YouTube, or almost,” Maher said on Real Time last week. “YouTube should not be telling me what I can see about ivermectin. Ivermectin isn’t a registered Republican. It’s a drug!”
From YouTube’s perspective, the argument for “medical misinformation” in the DarkHorse videos probably comes down to a few themes in Weinstein’s shows. Take, for example, an exchange between Weinstein and Malone in a video about the mRNA vaccines produced by companies like Moderna and Pfizer:
Weinstein: The other problem is that what these vaccines do is they encode spike protein… but the spike protein itself we now know is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic, is that a fair description?
Malone: More than fair, and I alerted the FDA about this risk months and months and months ago.
In another moment, entrepreneur and funder of fluvoxamine studies Steve Kirsch mentioned that his carpet cleaner had a heart attack minutes after taking the Pfizer vaccine, and cited Canadian viral immunologist Byram Bridle in saying that that the COVID-19 vaccine doesn’t stay localized at point of injection, but “goes throughout your entire body, it goes to your brain to your heart.”
Politifact rated the claim that spike protein is cytotoxic “false,” citing the CDC to describe the spike protein as “harmless.” As to the idea that the protein does damage to other parts of the body, including the heart, they quoted an FDA spokesperson who said there’s no evidence the spike protein “lingers at any toxic level in the body.”
Would many doctors argue that the 226 identified cases of myocarditis so far is tiny in the context of 130 million vaccine doses administered, and overall the danger of myocarditis associated with vaccine is far lower than the dangers of myocarditis in Covid-19 patients?
Absolutely. It’s also true that the CDC itself had a meeting on June 18th to discuss cases of heart inflammation reported among people who’d received the vaccine. The CDC, in other words, is simultaneously telling news outlets like Politifact that spike protein is “harmless,” and also having ad-hoc meetings to discuss the possibility, however remote from their point of view, that it is not harmless. Are only CDC officials allowed to discuss these matters?
The larger problem with YouTube’s action is that it relies upon those government guidelines, which in turn are significantly dependent upon information provided to them by pharmaceutical companies, which have long track records of being less than forthright with the public.
In the last decade, for instance, the U.S. government spent over $1.5 billion to stockpile Tamiflu, a drug produced by the Swiss pharma firm Roche. It later came out — thanks to the efforts of a Japanese pediatrician who left a comment on an online forum — that Roche had withheld crucial testing information from British and American buyers, leading to a massive fraud suit. Similar controversies involving the arthritis drug Vioxx and the diabetes drug Avandia were prompted by investigations by independent doctors and academics.
As with financial services, military contracting, environmental protection, and other fields, the phenomenon of regulatory capture is demonstrably real in the pharmaceutical world. This makes basing any moderation policy on official guidelines problematic. If the proper vaccine policy is X, but the actual policy ends up being X plus unknown commercial consideration Y, a policy like YouTube’s more or less automatically preempts discussion of Y.
Some of Weinstein’s broadcasts involve exactly such questions about whether or not it’s necessary to give Covid-19 vaccines to children, to pregnant women, and to people who’ve already had Covid-19, and whether or not the official stance on those matters is colored by profit considerations. Other issues, like whether or not boosters are going to be necessary, need a hard look in light of the commercial incentives.
These are legitimate discussions, as the WHOs own behavior shows. On April 8th, the WHO website said flatly: “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.” A month and a half later, the WHO issued a new guidance, saying the Pfizer vaccine was “suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above.”
The WHO was clear that its early recommendation was based on a lack of data, and on uncertainty about whether or not children with a low likelihood of infection should be a “priority,” and not on any definite conviction that the vaccine was unsafe. And, again, a Politifact check on the notion that the WHO “reversed its stance” on children rated the claim false, saying that the WHO merely “updated” its guidance on children. Still, the whole drama over the WHO recommendation suggested it should at least be an allowable topic of discussion.
Certainly there are critics of Weinstein’s who blanch at the use of sci-fi terms like “red pill” (derived from worldview-altering truth pill in The Matrix), employing language like “very dangerous” to describe the mRNA vaccines, and descriptions of ivermectin as a drug that would “almost certainly make you better.”
Even to those critics, however, the larger issue Weinstein’s case highlights should be clear. If platforms like YouTube are basing speech regulation policies on government guidelines, and government agencies demonstrably can be captured by industry, the potential exists for a new brand of capture — intellectual capture, where corporate money can theoretically buy not just regulatory relief but the broader preemption of public criticism. It’s vaccines today, and that issue is important enough, but what if in the future the questions involve the performance of an expensive weapons program, or a finance company contracted to administer bailout funds, or health risks posed by a private polluter?
Weinstein believes capture plays a role in his case at some level. “It’s the only thing that makes sense,” he says. He hopes the pressure from the public and from the media will push platforms like YouTube to reveal exactly how, and with whom, they settle upon their speech guidelines. “There’s something industrial strength about the censorship,” he says, adding. “There needs to be a public campaign to reject it.”
Why INTJs Don’t Trust People
INTJs do not give their trust easily, not in regards to trusting others to provide sound, logical opinions let alone advice, and even less so in terms of trusting others to reveal emotions to.
Creating Communities of Distributed Trust
39:04up the down escalator no III think I39:07think there are real possibilities of39:09creating communities of distributed39:14trust right which is which is at the39:17core of the to in my mind the whole39:19effort right have now how do you create39:22a community of distributed trust and and39:27and what I’d like to see is that that39:29distributed trust is applied to areas39:32that are not so fiercely guarded by the39:38you know the the powerful you know39:42states governments and and and39:45businesses right because again it when I39:48think about how to play the long game39:49here I think that is possible to carve39:53out39:55areas of got resistance but what I39:58really mean is areas of sovereignty self40:00sovereignty over issues again they’re40:02not so fiercely guarded as money yes40:04about the state and and so again this is40:07an issue of tactics or other than40:09strategy right and and and so that I40:11would pursue a different tactical40:14approach to the I think the goal we all40:17or most of your listeners share with you40:20and I for sure it it does seem to me and40:27I want to bring this back to the run of40:29iris now right which is that everything40:34you’re describing whether it’s whether40:36it’s your tactical approach my tactical40:39approach I40:42I think it’s tempting to think oh the40:44instability that the virus brings is40:47going to be an advantage in fighting40:51this long game right I actually think40:54it’s it’s it’s it’s a very much40:57disadvantageous to both of us right the41:00both of our tactical approaches here and41:02and I don’t think you have to look much41:04farther than what happened in Hungary41:07right over the last two days where the41:09the Hungarian Parliament and this has41:12been building for a while right and41:14event but Hungarian Parliament in41:17response to the throne of iris emergency41:21and it is an emergency gave really41:26dictatorial powers to to Viktor Orban41:29the the Prime Minister where he now has41:32the ability ability to rule by decree41:34right don’t have to pass the law doesn’t41:37have to go to Parliament whatever the41:40executive says is law there’s no time41:43limit on this now in hunger there’s a41:47new law that if you spread false41:49information I think and use as the41:53executive describes this what at stake41:54or not you’re in prison for five years41:56and if you try to leave the areas of41:59confinement quarantine that they’ve set42:01up that’s in the this this is what42:04happens I think in weaker states42:07go back to some you know idyllic state42:09of nature where you know you can set up42:13your you know Kingdom of Wakanda you42:15know alright what happens is they’re42:17taken over by thugs they’re taking them42:19by warlords and by thugs and and you42:23know in Hungary is uh it’s a member of42:26the yeah I mean I mean it’s a core42:28member of Europe so when I when I think42:31about what’s going to happen in the next42:33year and a half in Indonesia what’s42:36gonna happen the next year and a half in42:38Egypt it’s going to happen in today42:40what’s happening right now in Iran for42:42God’s sakes I I don’t think it works to42:46our advantage42:47III think that the impetus in every42:50country and particularly in the weaker42:52States is going to be for reclaiming of42:55the physical of the violence of the gun42:59and so this is why I think it’s more43:03important than ever that we identify43:06each other in our communities of empathy43:09in our communities of our pack right so43:14that we can fight this long game this43:18long war and so we can support each43:19other so anyway that’s not I’m just43:23trying to bring it back to what’s43:25happening today and and how we should43:28think about this unfortunately I don’t43:29think it’s a great opportunity but I43:32think it’s something that we all need to43:35come together even more around so that43:38we can can stray stay strong or the the43:42dark times that are ahead and I do think43:44they’re dark times well never one to43:48mince words and and and I certainly43:50appreciate the perspective on I’m43:52slightly more optimistic for the reasons43:56that I outlined you know in the physical43:57realm but in the digital realm right is44:00the internet still a bastion of freedom44:02and can you ultimately get people to act44:05freely outside of you know some of the44:08more restrictive social media platforms44:11for instance but just any type of44:12peer-to-peer communication system44:14peer-to-peer digital realms would seem44:17if you’re more conducive for the silent44:20distance the quiet resistance yes and44:22that individual thesis but how exactly44:26we get there not not debating that it44:29could get ugly I want to change gears44:32for the the last a little bit that we44:34have and just talk about your44:37understanding of the investment you know44:40as I guess for this generation of44:45investors because one of your more44:47popular posts this is water and yeah44:51it’s still water it kind of talked about44:53this shifting mindset where deflation44:56expectations that were driven by44:58technology are now inflation44:59expectations there’s and this isn’t45:02necessarily new but I like the way they45:04laid it out the the globalism that had45:09permeated the the macroeconomy for so45:12long is now becoming more nationalistic45:13now in some respects that’s not a bad45:16thing because now you might have45:18countries that are more resilient in the45:21face of issues like pandemics when when45:24today you know we’re seeing just how45:26levered we are via global supply chains45:31you talked about the kind of shifting45:33from you know capital markets into you45:36know true market mechanisms just45:38political utilities and um and then just45:41overall how financialization is kind of45:43exacerbated you know all of those trends45:46what what’s what’s the what’s the next45:49step in in financial markets right yeah45:51if if you run out of the capacity to45:53print if you run out of the capacity to45:55spend let’s not even talk about the u.s.45:58let’s talk about some some country like46:00like Hungary they don’t necessarily46:02control their own currency it’s a small46:05but usually functioning democracy what46:09does a market system look like in a46:11situation like hungry and then how do46:13you ever get back to normalcy or how do46:18you set the reset button so that the46:24short answer is that for in a I’ll go46:30back to46:32I’m gonna go back 2,500 years yeah this46:37is the academic in me right I can’t I46:38can’t I can’t give you a straight answer46:39right what you’re asking has all46:43happened before like it’s all happened46:46before right so Peloponnesian War you’ve46:52got a thens and Sparta the big countries46:56you know fighting each other and then46:59the question is well what happens to the47:00little countries what happens to ya47:05you know magar you know all these these47:07these little city-states and the the47:11Athenians they’re trying to get their47:13their allies together in one of the the47:18little allies is saying well you know47:20but you know you’re asking us to47:22sacrifice everything is all for you I47:24mean this this sounds this justice out a47:28great deal and the Athenian ambassador47:31says you know it was ever thus the47:33strong do as they will the weak do as47:36they must strong do as they will the47:39weak do this they must47:40and nothing has changed in 2500 freaking47:44years when it comes to the ability of47:49countries to chart their own course to47:55deal with the exigencies of power hungry48:02will do as they must even weaker48:07countries than hungry will definitely do48:08is they must and the strong do as they48:10will so what they will when it comes to48:15Europe when it comes to the United48:16States when it comes to Japan which48:17comes to to China is that there are no48:20limits on you know printer Gober right48:24there are no limits on you know we we48:29haven’t even really touched yet modern48:33monetary theory in the notion that well48:35there’s not even a relationship between48:37spending and taxing right48:38you can run deficits as much as you want48:40go on go for it we’re just getting48:43started man48:45getting started hey we’re not at the end48:48game of this where yeah it’s like it’s48:52like this is halftime hey this this48:55isn’t the last few minutes of the fourth48:56quarter48:57with how governments are going to48:59transform capital markets and the fourth49:01key utilities with how they’re going to49:03you know transform the meaning of money49:06into what supports political power yeah49:09this is just half time so I I think we49:14really do have to take that long-term49:16perspective that the printer can go burr49:20for a lot longer and it doesn’t matter49:25who gets elected you know you know it’s49:27it’s it it’s all the same that the last49:3010 years have been the greatest transfer49:32of wealth – I call it the managerial49:35class then I really think anything in49:40history it has come through stock49:42buybacks through stock sales through49:44stock based compensation it’s all49:46happened in the last 10 years and it’s a49:48transfer of hundreds of billions of49:50dollars of wealth to managers not49:55entrepreneurs not founders not Shinya to49:59managers managers and when that much50:04wealth is transferred to that number of50:06people in such a short period of time50:08it doesn’t reverse itself yeah you know50:11you know people don’t the the cheese may50:14move but people still want their cheese50:16yeah and and and I just I just think50:20it’s so important to remember that we50:24really are playing that long game to50:26remember that the strong do is they will50:28and the weak – as they must and to have50:32in mind a set that that we’re just half50:34time right now and that we need to play50:39the game accordingly because what you50:42don’t want to do is you don’t want to50:46yeah you don’t want to storm an50:48entrenched machine-gun nest you know50:50with you know huzzah now is our time you50:53know then you you really do I think want50:57to play the long game50:58I think there50:59a real power of conviction and belief51:03that allows us to play a long game51:06mm-hmm and to keep it all together51:11of course people like you doing your51:13podcast it requires people like me doing51:15our writing and most of it all it it51:18requires a critical mass of people who51:22whose greatest regret would be to give51:26up and to be co-opted by the powers that51:30be rather than play the long game and51:32fight the long fight I can’t think of a51:36better way to wrap up this conversation51:39than calling for conviction and long51:42term ISM and a market remedies panicked51:45and and you know short termism generally51:48drills the day then where can people51:51find you on twitter I’m easy it’s it’s51:54it’s all epsilon Theory all the time so51:56at epsilon theory and epsilon Theory51:59comm it’s for you to read and love to52:03love to have you on board it’s a it’s an52:06excellent read always I’ve been52:08following you for years now and and52:10definitely appreciate your commentary52:11and watching it at all even as we get52:14into a slightly darker period and you52:16can tell for those that are tuning in if52:19you can hear the background noise that52:20naptime just ended so we we just wrapped52:23up with the most perfect time because I52:25just I just heard my kids wake up and52:27surprise that they haven’t run in here52:28already thank you for having me Ryan’s52:32really a pleasure anytime Thank You Ben52:35and stay safe52:36YouTube take care
I watched Weinstein’s Youtube discussion of the mRNA vaccine with Robert Malone. As a physician, I didn’t find his discussion particularly convincing, nor that of Dr. Malone. Three or four hundred million people have now been vaccinated and we are not seeing a lot of serious side effects, which we would almost have certainly seen by now if there really was a problem. The issue, as I see it, is that Weinstein is making a living with his Youtube channel and obviously, he is motivated to increase his income by generating controversy. There’s a heck of a lot of content on Youtube and careful, well-reasoned discussion probably would generate less income than outlandish claims. As a physician, I’m used to reading medical journals and I have enough statistical training to evaluate the evidence. That’s not true for the majority of people exposed to this kind of programming. I’d have found Weinstein’s program a lot more interesting if he had brought on an active mRNA researcher to debate Dr. Malone. (I don’t think Dr. Malone is “in his dotage” at age 60, but he’s clearly not involved with this kind of work anymore.) Weinstein is a smart guy, but he’s not a physician, and not a virologist. His show needs to be a little more balanced if he wants to be taken seriously.
Check out Dr John Campbell , https://youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching he has over 1 million subs, talks about ivermectin all the time and is not demonetized. Why? Because of how he frames it, he is also a believer in vaccines.
Bret on the other hand has gone full Alex Jones with a messiah complex to boot! He has lost the fucking plot completely. Nothing he says makes sense anymore, it’s full on global conspiracy shit. He takes ivermectin live on air.. says he is not getting vaccinated but using ivermectin prophylacticly?.. it’s just totally over the top for a public channel and asking to be demonetized.
I think the reason there’s very little effort going into figuring out if ivermectin works is because we have vaccines that work so well and the fact that so many people got burned promoting early alternative treatments that turned out to be bullshit like hydroxychloroquine…. But I’m sure I’m wrong and Bret is the savior of humanity battling against big tech and the globalists behind the great reset! Maybe he should try and build back betterer his channel.