---

Why should we try to win people over who don’t want to talk to us anymore? And how do we do it? Dr. James Lyons-Weiler answered both of these questions at a recent conference in Idaho.

“We’re in this battle for our very existence,” he said. There is a global neo-communist agenda afoot, “this is not a political fight, it’s an existential fight because communists really don’t care about politics …  they want a single party to rule a country or rule the world.”

During the first National Conference of We The Patriots USA held on 2-3 June in Boise, Idaho, Dr. Lyons-Weiler delivered a presentation titled ‘The Open Society and its New Enemies: Shutting the Backdoor to Tyranny’.

Dr. James Lyons-Weiler is the CEO and President of IPAK, The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, the founder of IPAK-EDU LLC, an online University that specialises in higher learning for adults.  He publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘Popular Rationalism’.

In the video above Dr. Lyons-Weiler began with a quote from Karl Popper, the world’s most influential philosopher of science, who said: “No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.”  In other words, if a person doesn’t want to think, you’re not going to be able to discuss with them issues that matter. 

“Issues like whether or not they going to inject a mercury-containing influenza vaccine into their child and their baby knowing that mercury is a neurotoxin.  Topics like: Are they going to inject aluminium into their child’s brain, by injecting it into their muscle and it makes its way to the brain?” Dr. Lyons-Weiler said to give examples.

Karl Popper’s message was that we need to protect the open society.  This thinking began in 1944 as a reaction to the threats to open society from the Nazi regime in Germany. “Don’t listen to George Soros when he talks to you about the open society,” Dr. Lyons-Weiler said.  Soros has warped, twisted and distorted the concept of an open society.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler highlighted a collection of new enemies of the open society that we’re facing and said it’s our duty to protect and defend it.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler has published a series of articles on his Substack page on the open society.  In the first of the series, he wrote about how modern “Big Science” has rendered dangerous tendencies toward totalitarianism. He wrote:

“It is time for a return to Popperian views on science to protect democracies around the world … the backdoor of authoritarian (pseudo) science must be slammed shut to prevent a repeat of the covid-19 societal takeover … We must address the perilous distortions of science by centralised scientific authority, aka, “Big Science”, for its dangerous tendency to be used by those who seek totalitarian control over every aspect of our lives.”

There is a global neo-communist agenda afoot he told the Conference.  “This is not a political fight, it’s an existential fight because communists really don’t care about politics …  they want a single party to rule a country or rule the world.”

The World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) International Health Regulations (“IHRs”) is the backdoor to tyranny.  Dr. Lyons-Weiler explained that through the IHRs, the power structure that is being set up is: WHO answers to the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) and WEF answers to the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”). If proposed amendments to the IHRs are implemented our lives will be directed by the CCP. “That’s the backdoor to tyranny,” he said and summarised the lies that the neo-communists want you to believe to achieve their aims:

How do we win people over who don’t want to talk to us anymore?

When it comes to winning people over, it’s about words and communication. 

For example, Dr. Lyons-Weiler coined the term “pathogenic priming” because it was a much more apt description of what was happening than the term “immune enhancement” used by those promoting the vaccine agenda.

In April 2020, Dr. Lyons-Weiler wrote a paper analysing the viral protein of the original Wuhan covid virus.  In this study, he used the term “pathogenic priming” which up until then hadn’t existed.  What Dr. Lyons-Weiler was saying in this paper was: “If you put these proteins [intact] into your vaccine you’re going to cause autoimmunity in all of these different tissues in humans, a third of them will be immune proteins.  Autoimmunity against immune proteins causes AIDS [acquired immune deficiency syndrome]. Not HIV AIDS, AIDS – vaccine-induced AIDS or AIDS from SARS-CoV-2.”  If you know a vaccinated person who keeps getting SARS-CoV-2 and gets sicker each time, that’s pathogenic priming.

“Immune enhancement … [is] a euphemism that buried disease enhancement for 20 years,” he said.  If the term “disease enhancement” had been used we would have raised questions about the safety of vaccines.  To avoid these, they changed the terminology to the more pleasant, harmless-sounding “immune enhancement.”  So, to describe the disease enhancement caused by vaccines, which is called “immune enhancement” by the official narrative, Dr. Lyons-Weiler uses the term “pathogenic priming.”

People use terms such as “crazy conspiracy theory” to reject or deflect what you have to say.  To get around this obstacle, Dr. Lyons-Weiler suggested that we speak the truth in a way that talks about why what we’re saying is important.  For example, if someone calls you an anti-vaxxer say: “I’m not anti-vaccine, I’m vaccine risk aware.”  Being unable to respond with the knee-jerk “I’m not an anti-vaxxer,” what could be their response then be? “I’m not vaccine risk aware”?

Another approach is to avoid talking about us versus them.  “If you talk about them, instead of we and us, they’re going to fall into the rejection of [what we’re saying],” he said. If you don’t want to put someone into the mode of deflecting and rejecting what we have to say, it’s more important to talk about us or ourselves rather than them.

“Rather than: ‘I think you’re going to hurt your kids when you vaccinate them,” Dr. Lyons-Weiler explained, “talk about things like this: ‘I really think if more people avoided vaccines for their children, we might see a reduction in autoimmunity’.”  Another example he gave to illustrate the point was: “If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t do this to my children.”

Another conversation worth having is one about the tyranny of consensus.  A consensus on its own doesn’t make something a fact.  Scientists often get things wrong.  So just because a consensus is thinking in one way it is not a good reason to think that same way. “That’s how you sink a ship,” Dr. Lyons-Weiler said, “’ Hey, everybody run over to this side of the ship … that’s the danger of consensus.”

We have an obligation, a duty, to recognise that all cultures value the voice of the minority, he said.  He is not referring to a minority based on skin colour, ethnicity or religion but the “minority viewpoint” on any particular issue.  “In the UK, for example, they actually value the loyal opposition.  It’s called the ‘loyal opposition’,” he said.  In America, “our society has forgotten the wisdom of the minority.  So much so, that if you disagree with me, I’m pretty much concerned that you hate my guts … one of the things … we tend not to do and are less able to do, increasingly, is have discussions that are in the open about the virtues, and the merits and demerits of the different viewpoints.”

The wisdom of the minority and value of informed dissent means that we all have a duty, and obligation to speak up when something has gone wrong. “It’s not so much about proving that we’re right or proving the other person wrong, it’s about helping them to be less wrong as much as we can and accepting the same gift in return,” he explained.

Further reading: Open Society Series Article #5:The Wisdom of the Minority and the Value of Informed Dissent, James Lyons-Weiler, 29 May 2023

Speaking of propaganda, Dr. Lyons-Weiler said that propaganda is always false, it’s always a lie.  Conversely, if it’s true it’s not propaganda.  There are people in this world who are so good at propaganda that they can make you believe propaganda is truth. “Don’t try to convince [people] ‘this is just propaganda’ because there’s no conversation after that,” he said.  “But they will at least agree with you that propaganda is false.  So, start the conversation with something like “propaganda has been used by every government …” and give a verifiable example.