Cannabis, Medicine and Alex Berenson

Anyone know a good lawyer?

(Warning: this rant is bitchy AF. I regret nothing)

Every ‘Rona dissident feels a great deal of gratitude to the Big Names: those who stood up and copped the bulk of the flack from the maniacal Germ Conspiracy pushers during those brutal and socially-isolating early days of dissent.

Who’s my favourite? Has to be Dr. Immanuel. Who? You know, the Nigerian Doctor, whose greatest achievement was not her fierce advocation of HCQ, but for dropping giant Genesis 6 red pills on the normies when people dug up old sermons of her speaking about inter-dimensional alien sex and demonic hybrid children.

Did you know I have a 5-part series on HCQ? How many other terrain theorists can tell you that hey?

Now, we owe much to these pioneers. However, and at the risk of becoming the resident Substack conspiracy theorist that makes everyone uncomfortable, let’s not be naive that there aren’t a few opportunists coming along for the ride.

So, with that in mind: who’s your least favourite ‘Rona dissident?

Alex Berenson is an interesting one, because it almost seems too obvious. We know he is a graduate of the Big Pharma-sanctioned sphere of media influence — The Old Grey Lady no less. He has been (rightfully) ruthless on the New York Times for their ‘Rona coverage — however, like an ex that you just can’t quit, he appears ready to return.

Why? Because, with the Jibby Jab religion turning full Jonestown, the Times appears ready to pivot and join Bero’s stunning and brave anti-Cannabis crusade.

Before we get to Cannabis, a quick summary.

What did Bero bring to the anti-Jibby Jab table? As others have observed astutely, he is the quickest reporter in the game. Almost every time a piece of negative official data was slipped out, every time an academic paper with a remotely wrong-think conclusion was dripped out, every time actual legitimate science managed to pick another hole in the unravelling Official Narrative, he was the first onto it.

It makes the whole “Unreported Truths” grandstanding both accurate yet slightly disingenuous: while at the time of his reporting they are indeed unreported, the same things he reports on are then reported on independently by many, many other genuine journalists and writers who don’t feel the need to do it with self-serving aggrandisement and coordinated fundraising endeavors.

Perhaps I am being too harsh; look at that face. Perhaps Bero has deserved such luxuries, because Bero has arguably copped more flack than any journalist who has challenged the mainstream ‘Rona narrative.

He was labeled, most famously, by The Atlantic as The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man for daring to reach conclusions that directly contradicted Official advice.

The article is a difficult one to interpret. It’s obvious we are dealing with hardcore Germ Conspiracy Theorists in the authors(s): not to mention dedicated order followers who believe without question anything Official.

But it’s also clear that Berenson delivered his conclusions in a deliberately provocative manner: the dude is a serial spy novelist after all. He expertly cherry picked the results that threatened the mainstream Jibby Jab narrative, and exploited them to perfection to seed the counter narrative as effectively as anyone.

Creating this narrative also necessitated ignoring much of the data that pointed in the opposite direction: and, let’s remember, they did initially flood the media environment with a large amount of what seemed like compelling if suspiciously positive Jibby Jab data. So, in short, his method is exactly the same as those who have spruiked the Jibby Jabs: it’s just that we happen to agree with his takes (and which have largely proven to be correct).

It is the lack of balance — along with the threat and potency of his narrative — that allowed and required him to be crucified by the Germ Conspiracists. The Atlantic article wrote itself, in other words.

The added bonus for The Atlantic was his often highly unpleasantly snarky manner: the perfect anti-Jibby Jab archetype to sell to the Lib masses so they could project it onto the rest of us — as they have and continue to do. The added bonus for Bero is that he has been able to refer back to the article with such repetition and effectiveness that a cynic might conclude it was all part of the script.

Perhaps it is best to understand Bero’s role has having done to the anti-Jibby Jab debate what Orange Man did to early-treatment debate, when he put his thoroughly disinfected Kiss of Death on HCQ: inserting himself into the story in a provocative way with divisive effect.

A more charitable perspective would be this: someone had to do it.

As a self-identified troll, I absolutely accept and respect those who take deliberately provocative positions from moral standpoints, and accept the negative energy that will inevitably return.

Maybe I feel qualified to go after Bero because I am of his kind (no, not the Jewish part). Maybe it is my own snark, sarcasm and compulsion to insert myself into the story that I see when I stare into those sad, cold eyes.

Dude’s not looking so good these days. Someone get him some horse paste and a spliff, stat.

So I have no hard feelings when it comes to Bero and the Jibby Jab, not that someone who has mastered the grift in the way Bero has would care anyway — its part of the deal, just haters gonna hate amirite? May a corrupt legal system be forever in your favour.

But Bero and Cannabis. Oh boy, I have opinions (and, in a confusing inversion that I am still trying to process, my opinion agrees with that of The Guardian).

Because, having advanced very near if not to the top of the anti-Jibby Jab intelligentsia, Bero has been left perfectly placed to drop his steaming load of basic bitch Cannabis hot takes to a still adoring (I think, or is it getting spicy now?) following — now back on Twitter.

Substack: do we need to talk about Cannabis?

In case I be mistaken for a free-loving hedonist, may I state my position as being firmly against wanton and wilful consumption of the Devil’s Lettuce by all and sundry, heralding in the complete degradation of Western society until the final Horseman arrives through a purple haze looking slightly dazed and peckish.

While legalisation is a no-brainer from a moral standpoint alone (the Government cannot regulate your mind, as much as it tries to and as much as some people allow it to), it is not without issues. It must come with a paradigm shift in society around how the plant and its various uses are understood and respected — without this shift, legalisation may only increase the degree to which the plant is abused.

Bero is, regrettably, not the person to achieve such a shift. A conspiracy theorist at heart — bless him — he seems to believe the pro-Cannabis agenda is really just another trojan horse for the psychopaths to go after our children.

Now, in general, I’m all for such lines of reasoning. And, to be honest — why wouldn’t there be individuals in the pro-Cannabis movement with bad intentions, who want to promote its widespread use to further poison the soul and spirit of society? They seem to have infiltrated every other movement by this point.

Real or imagined, Berenson certainly appears committed in his Jihad against the The Cannabis Conspiracy. In doing so, however, he has appears to be missing the larger medical picture. Maybe someone should tell him about The Endocannabinoid Conspiracy to get him back on track?

This is my bottom line: Cannabis is a medicine (yes, even and especially THC) and anyone engaging in the debate must use this as starting point. Bero appears unwilling to do this — casually dismissing arguments for medical Cannabis as scientifically unsupported, and simply a backdoor for recreational users to avoid the law. Really mate? I guess he did exactly the same thing for Ivermectin, so why would we be at all surprised.

Cannabis will, most notably for our community, play a central role in the medical care of those who’s health/lives have been decimated by the Jibby Jab madness. That is, assuming common sense and decency wins out over the desires of the anti-nature psychopaths — cheered on by the reefer madness brigade — who would better desire the continued captivity of Mary Jane for no other reason than to prolong our collective suffering.

Perhaps we shouldn’t celebrate too much, however — and again, this is where I do agree with Bero (who, in fairness, does at least support decriminalisation): that legalisation will come with unavoidable side effects. In fact, I’m sure the Germ Conspiracy financiers already know how the script will play out — perfectly prepared like a good pimp to promptly and ruthlessly hijack and monetise a newly liberated Mary Jane: transforming it into some mutant green hybrid transhumanist Meta-strain.

And thus, the Cannabis Inversion — one of the earliest initiated forms of anti-nature warfare — will be essentially complete.

My experiences with Cannabis have been, and continue to be, largely positive — far more positive since I made the conscious decision to understand it as a medicine. I wonder how many people in Bero’s comment section — blaming their past ills on the Green Devil — were actually using it as a medicine with the intention of healing in mind when they experienced those problems?

So, while you can be assured that I come at this issue with my own biases, I have also learned long ago to not equate my own needs or experiences with anyone else’s.

Cannabis is an incredibly complex plant that is experienced in a highly subjective manner — its consumption is not for everyone, and it is certainly not designed for adolescents with growing brains and stagnating morality. Who even knows what is in some of the strains of Jazz Cabbage young people are currently ripping back on the daily? This might be what happens when you push a natural medicine onto the black market and make it the biological plaything of criminals and/or anarchic herbalists.

Berenson (full name, gloves off) drills down on the now established correlation between early Cannabis use and psychosis, dramatised in characteristic manner (OMGOSH THE MASS SHOOTER WAS A STONER GUYS I TOLD YOU) to allege causation, whilst completely annihilating the nuance of the broader debate around Cannabis legalisation and often ridiculing those who advocate for legalisation.

And it is because of this ridicule that the gloves are now off.

Sorry, but: pointing to the harm and misuse of a still largely illegal medicine as a reason to continue its criminalisation and vilification in the hope the situation will improve (assuming you are trying to improve the situation) is an impressively reductionist and magical line of reasoning.

It is also — more importantly — moralising, virtue signalling, ivory tower bullshit. Are you really in this to protect kids from the high dose THC they have had increasingly ready access to despite it being illegal Bero? If so, maybe tone down on the dramatics for once on this one… or, if Berenson is gonna Berenson, I would suggest going back to writing shitty (I assume, they may well be ripping yarns) spy novels now that you have the new audience you have been seeking.

I mean, FFS, really? Are we still needing to argue politely about whether Government has the authority to restrict a plant that humanity has co-evolved with? Who let this bootlicker speak for us anti-Jibby Jabbers?

Whether it is “infectious” disease, whether it is mind-altering plants, whether it is abortion — the last few years are really showing that the desire for Daddy Government to come and save the day crosses all partisan lines.