Ninety miles from the South Eastern tip of the United States, Liberty has no stead. In order for Liberty to exist and thrive, Tyranny must be identified, recognized, confronted and extinguished.
Think back to October 2020. The election hung in the balance, CNN had a COVID death clock, and labcoat authoritarians were entrenching their ability to micromanage our lives. And now this.
An email now reveals that the scientists who were running point on our pandemic response didn’t just ignore dissenting opinions, but they actively looked for ways to smear and discredit them as ‘fringe’ or cranks– even when it involved Nobel Laureats.
Because Fauci and Collins are far more serious scientists than any Nobel Laureate, right? After all, Fauci IS the science. He’s said so.
How exactly does someone like Fauci or Collins get to be the gatekeeper of a discipline whose very existence depends on conflict between dissenting ideas?
Simple. They do it by cheating and by colluding with powerful media and tech players.
The key dates to watch here as the story unfolds are the publishing of the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, the email between Collins and Fauci on October 8th, and action taken by Google no more than 4 days later.
October 4: Great Barrington Declaration
In October of 4 2020, a group of scientists came forward with ‘The Great Barrington Declaration‘, it’s a document written and now signed by a great number of well-qualified medical practitioners of various types and backgrounds as well as members of the public who agree with the premises therein.
Here’s a screenshot from the page as it appears today.
And a screenshot from that same page describing the original authors:
Harvard? Oxford? Stanford? And a Nobel Laureate as well? If this were an alarmist document pushing climate change, this would be cited in every major news source. But as with all Corporate News selective appeals to authority these days, dissenting voices are dismissed and squeezed out as ‘fringe’.
Serious scientists would face the claims made by rival schools of thought, put them to the test, and change or refine their own opinions based on the result of those studies. Unfortunately, Fauci and Collins are NOT serious scientists.
October 8: Collins and Fauci React
They had a far more ‘progressive’ way to defeat a rival school of thought. Wage a propaganda war to destroy the dissenters.
They would never do such a thing, would they?
Well, here’s a tweet by one of the authors of the GBD.
If you open up that tweet, you will find the following creepy email inside. Names are highlighted in red, the date in green, and we’ve brought attention to one especially jackbooted phrase in the body of the email itself.
[For proper context of what had him so worked up, we will include the full text of the document at the end of the article.]
It wasn’t underway yet, but Fauci obviously passed that message on to somebody and it was duly heard, understood, and acknowledged by ideological shock troops somewhere.
The GBD was published on October 4th. On the afternoon of the 8th, Collins and Fauci are plotting to take them down with extreme prejudice.
Three Trump-obsessed former generals penned a conspiracy theory laden op-ed for The Washington Post late last week warning of a potential coup and civil war in 2024 unless certain steps are taken now to nullify the threat.
These steps include purging the military of those accused of wrongthink, making it “perfectly clear to every member” of America’s armed forces “whom they answer to” and prosecuting any Republican who challenged the 2020 presidential election results.
Written by retired U.S. Army Gen. Paul D. Eaton, retired U.S. Army Major Gen. Antonio M. Taguba and retired U.S. Army Brigadier Gen. Steven M. Anderson, the piece centers around the thesis that after Democrats win the 2024 election, Republicans will install a shadow government.
This shadow government, the generals claim, will be led by either former President Trump “or another Trumpian figure.”
“Imagine competing commanders in chief — a newly reelected Biden giving orders, versus Trump (or another Trumpian figure) issuing orders as the head of a shadow government. Worse, imagine politicians at the state and federal levels illegally installing a losing candidate as president,” the generals write.
“All service members take an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution. But in a contested election, with loyalties split, some might follow orders from the rightful commander in chief, while others might follow the Trumpian loser. Arms might not be secured depending on who was overseeing them. Under such a scenario, it is not outlandish to say a military breakdown could lead to civil war.”
As proof that this could happen, the generals cite “the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol” where a pro-Trump rioter, Ashli Babbitt, was killed by a U.S. Capitol Police officer. According to the generals, this riot that lasted a few hours was a “coup” that’s destined to happen again.
“We are chilled to our bones at the thought of a coup succeeding next time,” the generals write.
In fairness to them, many on the right worry that if Trump runs for reelection and wins in 2024, members of the left may one day stage their own “insurection” again like they did during the the Black Lives Matter “protests” of 2020:
Continuing their op-ed, the generals express feeling especially concerned because of “signs of potential turmoil” (or dissent, rather) in the military.
“On Jan. 6, a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military took part in the attack on the Capitol. More than 1 in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record,” they write.
The generals also complain about 124 retired military officials who’d simply penned a letter — kind of like an op-ed — “echoing” Trump’s claims that the 2020 election had been rife with fraud and...
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas revealed Tuesday that he is working with the social media giants to combat “misinformation,” which all too often recently has come to mean “dissent from the establishment political and media line.” What about the First Amendment? They’re working on ways to get around it.
Brad Stone, senior executive editor for Bloomberg News, asked Mayorkas if he considered “misinformation” a “part of your mandate at DHS, and how much resources are you devoting to fighting misinformation such as election falsehoods or Covid disinformation?”
Mayorkas responded: “I think that’s very much within, uh, our domain, uh, misinformation, uh, pointedly, disinformation have very serious and significant ramifications for homeland security. The integrity of our election system, the security of our election system is a prime example of that. And so, um, our office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans under Rob Silver’s leadership, CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] under Jen Easterly’s leadership, uh, John Cohen leading, uh, the office of intelligence and analysis, uh, in an acting capacity, Samantha Winograd, a senior counselor to the Secretary and our Acting Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism, these are individuals very much involved in their respective workforces, very much involved in addressing misinformation, disinformation, and the threats that they pose to the homeland.”
Instead of pressing Mayorkas about how these officials distinguished what was actual misinformation or disinformation from what was claimed to be by hyper-partisans, Stone lobbed Mayorkas a softball: “I, I know you’ve been doin’ this a long time. Personally, do you ever get, um, you know, or — do you ever get upset by just the ubiquity of falsehoods and mysol — and myth —- in our public dialogue these days, and, and the ease with which they’re transported across social media and the Internet?
Speaking very slowly and deliberately, Mayorkas answered: “I, um, I do. I, I think that, uh, false narratives present a threat to our security. The propagation of false narratives is something to be condemned. Uh, we need our leaders, uh, to step up and fight against it, eyah, because the words of leaders, you know, they matter quite a bit. They can be very influential in the public discourse. You know, uh, the Department of Homeland Security, our, our work, uh, rests often at the epicenter of...
