Category: Tony the Fauch

Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic COVID How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch Vaccines

Congess’ FINAL REPORT: COVID Select Concludes 2-Year Investigation, Issues 500+ Page Report+

WASHINGTON – Today [Dec 2, 2024 – TPR], the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic concluded its two-year investigation into the COVID-19 pandemic and released a final report titled “After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward.” The final report will serve as a road map for Congress, the Executive Branch, and the private sector to prepare for and respond to future pandemics. Since February 2023, the Select Subcommittee has sent more than 100 investigative letters, conducted more than 30 transcribed interviews and depositions, held 25 hearings and meetings, and reviewed more than one million pages of documents. Members and staff have exposed high-level corruption in America’s public health system, confirmed the most likely origin of the pandemic, held COVID-19 bad actors publicly accountable, fostered bipartisan consensus on consequential pandemic-era issues, and more. This 520-page final report details all findings of the Select Subcommittee’s investigation.

“This work will help the United States, and the world, predict the next pandemic, prepare for the next pandemic, protect ourselves from the next pandemic, and hopefully prevent the next pandemic. Members of the 119th Congress should continue and build off this work, there is more information to find and honest actions to be taken,” wrote Chairman Wenstrup in a letter to Congress. “The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a distrust in leadership. Trust is earned. Accountability, transparency, honesty, and integrity will regain this trust. A future pandemic requires a whole of America response managed by those without personal benefit or bias. We can always do better, and for the sake of future generations of Americans, we must. It can be done.”

On Wednesday, December 4, 2024, at 10:30am, the Select Subcommittee will hold a markup of the final report and officially submit the report to the Congressional record. Ahead of the markup, the Select Subcommittee will also release additional supporting materials and recommendations.

The full, 520-page final report can be found here. A summary of the information can be found below:

The Origins of the Coronavirus Pandemic, Including but Not Limited to the Federal Government’s Funding of Gain-of-Function Research

COVID-19 ORIGIN: COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. The FIVE strongest arguments in favor of the “lab leak” theory include:

  1. The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.
  2. Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.
  3. Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research at inadequate biosafety levels.
  4. Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with a COVID-like virus in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.
  5. By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced.

PROXIMAL ORIGIN PUBLICATION: “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature.

GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH: A lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is most likely the origin of COVID-19. Current government mechanisms for overseeing this dangerous gain-of-function research are incomplete, severely convoluted, and lack global applicability.

ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE INC. (ECOHEALTH): EcoHealth — under the leadership of Dr. Peter Daszak — used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. After the Select Subcommittee released evidence of EcoHealth violating the terms of its National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commenced official debarment proceedings and suspended all funding to EcoHealth.

  • New evidence also shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an investigation into EcoHealth’s pandemic-era activities.

NIH FAILURES: NIH’s procedures for funding and overseeing potentially dangerous research are deficient, unreliable, and pose a serious threat to both public health and national security. Further, NIH fostered an environment that promoted evading federal record keeping laws — as seen through the actions of Dr. David Morens and “FOIA Lady” Marge Moore.

The Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Transparency of the Use of Taxpayer Funds and Relief Programs to Address the Coronavirus Pandemic, Including Any Reports of Waste, Fraud, or Abuse

COVID-19 RELIEF FUNDING: Federal and state governments had significant lapses in coordination, were unprepared to oversee the allocation of COVID-19 relief funds, and failed to sufficiently identify waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars during the pandemic.

PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM: The Paycheck Protection Program — which offered essential relief to Americans in the form of loans that could be forgiven if the funds were used to offset pandemic-era hardships — was rife with fraudulent claims resulting in at least $64 billion of taxpayers’ dollars lost to fraudsters and criminals.

FRADULENT UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS: Fraudsters cost the American taxpayer more than $191 billion dollars by taking advantage of the federal government’s unemployment system and exploiting individuals’ personally identifiable information.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) FAILURES: $200 million of taxpayers’ dollars were lost as a result of the SBA’s inability to conduct proper oversight, implement internal controls, and ensure fraud protection measures were enacted.

TRANSNATIONAL FRAUD: At least half of the taxpayer dollars lost in COVID-19 relief programs were stolen by international fraudsters.

COVID-19 RELIEF FUNDING OVERSIGHT: Expanding relief programs that lacked proper oversight functions exposed severe vulnerabilities in the system and paved the way for fraudsters, international criminals, and foreign adversaries to take advantage of taxpayers.

The Implementation or Effectiveness of Any Federal Law or Regulation Applied, Enacted, or Under Consideration to Address the Coronavirus Pandemic and Prepare for Future Pandemics

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO): The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure because it caved to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties. Further, the WHO’s newest effort to solve the problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic — via a “Pandemic Treaty” — may harm the United States.

SOCIAL DISTANCING: The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation — which shut down schools and small business across the country — was arbitrary and not based on science. During closed door testimony, Dr. Fauci testified that the guidance, “sort of just appeared.”

MASK MANDATES: There was no conclusive evidence that masks effectively protected Americans from COVID-19. Public health officials flipped-flopped on the efficacy of masks without providing Americans scientific data — causing a massive uptick in public distrust.

LOCKDOWNS: Prolonged lockdowns caused immeasurable harm to not only the American economy, but also to the mental and physical health of Americans, with a particularly negative effect on younger citizens. Rather than prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable populations, federal and state government policies forced millions of Americans to forgo crucial elements of a healthy and financially sound life.

NEW YORK PANDEMIC FAILURES: Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s March 25 Order — which forced nursing homes to accept COVID-19 positive patients — was medical malpractice. Evidence shows that Mr. Cuomo and his Administration worked to cover up the tragic aftermath of their policy decisions in an apparent effort to shield themselves from accountability.

  • Evidence suggests Mr. Cuomo knowingly and willfully made false statements to the Select Subcommittee on numerous occasions about material aspects of New York’s COVID-19 nursing home disaster and the ensuing cover-up. The Select Subcommittee referred Mr. Cuomo to the DOJ for criminal prosecution.

TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS: President Trump’s rapidly implemented travel restrictions saved lives. During Dr. Fauci’s transcribed interview, he unequivocally agreed with every travel restriction issued by the Trump Administration. This testimony runs counter to the public narrative that the Trump Administration’s travel restrictions were xenophobic.

COVID-19 MISINFORMATION: Public health officials often spread misinformation through conflicting messaging, kneejerk reactions, and a lack of transparency. In the most egregious examples of pervasive misinformation campaigns, off-label drug use and the lab leak theory were unjustly demonized by the federal government.

  • The Biden Administration even employed undemocratic and likely unconstitutional methods — including pressuring social media companies to censor certain COVID-19 content — to fight what it deemed misinformation.

The Development of Vaccines and Treatments, and the Development and Implementation of Vaccination Policies for Federal Employees and Members of the Armed Forces

OPERATION WARP SPEED: President-elect Trump’s Operation Warp Speed — which encouraged the rapid development and authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine — was highly successful and helped save millions of lives.

COVID-19 VACCINE: Contrary to what was promised, the COVID-19 vaccine did not stop the spread or transmission of the virus.

RUSHED COVID-19 VACCINE APPROVAL: The FDA rushed approval of the COVID-19 vaccine in order to meet the Biden Administration’s arbitrary mandate timeline. Two leading FDA scientists warned their colleagues about the dangers of rushing the vaccine approval process and the likelihood of adverse events. They were ignored, and days later, the Biden Administration mandated the vaccine.

VACCINE MANDATES: Vaccine mandates were not supported by science and caused more harm than good. The Biden Administration coerced healthy Americans into compliance with COVID-19 vaccine mandates that trampled individual freedoms, harmed military readiness, and disregarded medical freedom to force a novel vaccine on millions of Americans without sufficient evidence to support their policy decisions.

NATURAL IMMUNITY: Public health officials engaged in a coordinated effort to ignore natural immunity — which is acquired through previous COVID-19 infection — when developing vaccine guidance and mandates.

VACCINE INJURY REPORTING SYSTEM: Vaccine injury reporting systems created confusion, failed to properly inform the American public about vaccine injuries, and deteriorated public trust in vaccine safety during the COVID-19 pandemic.

VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION: The government is failing to efficiently, fairly, and transparently adjudicate claims for the COVID-19 vaccine injured.

The Economic Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic and Associated Government Response on Individuals, Communities, Small Businesses, Health Care Providers, States, and Local Government Entities

BUSINESS IMPACTS: Federal and state governments imposed mandatory lockdowns that were the primary cause of temporary and permanent business closures. More than 160,000 businesses closed due to the pandemic — with 60% of those closures classified as permanent. For the businesses that stayed or re-opened, the lack of supply chain diversity exacerbated pandemic-era challenges and deepened existing disparities.

HEALTHCARE IMPACTS: America’s healthcare system was severely damaged by the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients experienced a decreased quality-of-care, longer wait times, shorter medical appointments, and missed diagnoses.

WORKER IMPACTS: Unemployment rates surged to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Overly broad mitigation measures — including the now debunked “6 feet apart” guidance — disproportionately impacted sectors with low wage earners.

FEDERAL RESERVE: The Federal Reserve’s aggressive, early, and unprecedented response to the COVID-19 pandemic prevented a severe economic downturn. This continued approach also contributed to staggering inflation.

The Societal Impact of Decisions to Close Schools, How the Decisions Were Made and Whether There is Evidence of Widespread Learning Loss or Other Negative Effects as a Result of These Decisions

COVID-19 SCHOOL CLOSURES: The “science” never justified prolonged school closures. Children were unlikely to contribute to the spread of COVID-19 or suffer severe illness or mortality. Instead, as a result of school closures, children experienced historic learning loss, higher rates of psychological distress, and decreased physical well-being.

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC) INFLUENCE: The Biden Administration’s CDC broke precedent and provided a political teachers organization with access to its scientific school reopening guidance. Former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky asked the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) to provide specific language for the guidance and even went so far as to accept numerous edits made by AFT.

AFT INFLUENCE: Schools remained closed longer than necessary because of AFT’s political interference in the CDC’s school reopening guidance. AFT is a political union, not a scientific organization, that advocated for mitigation efforts that prolonged school closures — including an automatic closure “trigger.”

  • Testimony revealed that AFT President Weingarten had a direct telephone line to contact former CDC Director Walensky.

LONGTERM IMPACTS: Standardized test scores show that children lost decades worth of academic progress as a result of COVID-19 school closures. Mental and physical health concerns also skyrocketed — with suicide attempts by 12-17 year-aged girls rising 51%.

Cooperation By the Executive Branch and Others with Congress, the Inspectors General, the Government Accountability Office, and Others in Connection with Oversight of the Preparedness for and Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic

HHS OBSTRUCTION: The Biden Administration’s HHS engaged in a multi-year campaign of delay, confusion, and non-responsiveness in an attempt to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation and hide evidence that could incriminate or embarrass senior public health officials. It appears that HHS even intentionally under-resourced its component that responds to legislative oversight requests.

ECOHEALTH OBSTRUCTION: EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation by providing publicly available information, instructing his staff to reduce the scope and pace of productions, and doctoring documents before releasing them to the public. Further, Dr. Daszak provided false statements to Congress.

DR. DAVID MORENS: Dr. Fauci’s Senior Advisor, Dr. David Morens, deliberately obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation, likely lied to Congress on multiple occasions, unlawfully deleted federal COVID-19 records, and shared nonpublic information about NIH grant processes with EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak.

NEW YORK OBSTRUCTION: New York’s Executive Chamber — led presently by Governor Kathy Hochul — redacted documents, offered numerous illegitimate privilege claims, and withheld thousands of documents without an apparent legal basis to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation into former Governor Cuomo’s pandemic-era failures.

Categories
China Corruption COVID How sick is this? Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch Vaccines

WE KNEW IT! O’Keefe Media: NIH Chief Confesses COVID Health Initiatives Were Completely Made Up… “I Probably Shouldn’t Be Saying This Out Loud”

VIA Gateway Pundit

O’Keefe Media Group on Monday released its first undercover video in its NIH Tapes series.

In OMG’s first video release, Raja Cholan, Chief of Health Data Standards Branch US National Library of Medicine, said the Covid health initiatives were completely made up.

“I probably shouldn’t be saying this out loud. They might have funded a lab in Wuhan, China and Pfizer and Moderna are getting a bunch of money from all of these vaccine mandates,” Raja Cholan said to the OMG undercover journalist.

“I don’t even know if these vaccines stop you from getting COVID. They don’t,” Raja Cholan said, adding, “We’re all going to learn [about the dangers of the Covid vaccine] when it’s too late.”

Raja Cholan said the ‘six feet of social distancing’ rule “wasn’t based on any real evidence that it did anything – it was completely made up.”

The NIH Chief told OMG that Trump’s victory is “worse for the NIH.”

“It would be better for a Democrat to be in office,” he said.

“We fly under the radar of really being scrutinized…I don’t think I have too much to worry about. That’s not recording, right?” he said to the undercover journalist.

Watch on X:

 

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) earlier this year finally admitted to funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the ground zero for the COVID-19 pandemic.

This admission directly contradicts previous statements made under oath by Dr. Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

 

Fauci has consistently denied these allegations under oath.

In a 2021 Senate hearing, Fauci clashed with Senator Rand Paul over Fauci’s involvement in funding the Wuhan lab’s gain-of-function research that led to COVID-19.

Fauci and others at the NIH received huge kickbacks from Big Pharma from Covid vaccines.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, recently left Dr. Phil stunned by the amount of kickbacks Dr. Fauci and other high-level deputies at the National Institute for Health received from Moderna and other major pharmaceuticals.

Categories
Biden Pandemic Censorship Corruption COVID Drugs Harris Cartel Medicine Reprints from others. Science Tony the Fauch

Bombshell Study Censored by The Lancet Released: Confirms ‘High Likelihood of Causal Link Between COVID-19 Vaccines and Death’

Multiple jabs don't help.

Bombshell Study Censored by The Lancet Released: Confirms ‘High Likelihood of Causal Link Between COVID-19 Vaccines and Death’

Have we learned nothing? Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

As previously reported by The Gateway Pundit, a COVID-19 vaccination study is back in the news.

On November 17, 2024, Science, Public Health Policy and The Law journal published a peer-reviewed study titled, “A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After Covid-19 Vaccination.“

This study was publicly available, but publications such as The Lancet made repeated attempts to censor it. After far too long, it has finally been published.

Coincidentally, as the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. work on a transition plan, these types of stories have entered back into the zeitgeist.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a well-known COVID-19 vaccine combatant, has been active on X recently, speaking of the dangers of the vaccine and advocating for its removal.

Last week, The Gateway Pundit reported on another study -by two of the same authors – citing evidence that the current bird flu strain was leaked from laboratories performing gain of function research.

While there has long been evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine has been harmful because of the spike protein, this study made even broader claims.

“The findings of these researchers present an illustrative case of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s thesis that mass vaccination with nonsterilizing vaccines can result in the emergence of a new, more virulent viral strain.”

As the incoming Trump Administration looms over the swamp of Washington, the timing of such studies appears ominous for an unaccountable health bureaucracy.

The mounting evidence show a poorly constructed vaccine strategy for combating the pandemic. With this study having been previously censored by medical journals such as The Lancet, it begs the question as to why it has suddenly been accepted.

As one of the authors of the study, Nicolas Hulscher, observes, the CDC has remained silent.

 

The study’s findings are remarkable. The researchers studied autopsies from “…all published autopsy and organ-restricted autopsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination through May 18th, 2023.”

Out of 240 deaths 73.9% can be attributed to the Covid-19 vaccination. The study breaks down the different adverse effects on the immune system and demonstrates why the “Spike Protein” can create unintended consequences as a mechanism for ‘immunological response.’

Curiously, the story of the deaths and the adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccine have stayed out of the mainstream pharmaceutical company-funded outlets.

The study references the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) database.

As of today, according to VAERS, deaths and adverse events related to the Covid-19 Vaccine are sky high. These numbers far exceed not only the vaccines on the current schedule but all other vaccines combined in the history of the system.

Source: VAERS

It should be noted that these events can be reported by anyone and that VAERS should be a signal for safety. It does not, in any way, infer causation.

However, as more studies show threats to safety from the COVID-19 vaccine, the VAERS data can be a point of reference for future analysis.

The vaccines included in the study appear to cover the major platforms available in the marketplace. According to the study, Pfizer-BioNTech, Astrazeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Sinovac-CoronaVac, and Novavax are part of the analysis. This may or may not be relevant.

However, if further investigation continues to uncover similar problems with the vaccine across all platforms, the technology itself may begin to fall under further scrutiny.

As many previous analyses have indicated, the cardiovascular system has been found to be disproportionately affected by the vaccine. This analysis also indicates similar findings.

These studies are possible safety signals that should be flagged. At the very least, further analysis is needed.

See the graph of cases affected by organ system below:

Another observation regarded the three physicians who adjudicated the study. Out of the 240 deaths it was determined that 73.9% were caused by the vaccine.

The study also notes, “Among adjudicators, there was complete independent agreement (all three physicians) of COVID-19 vaccination contributing to death in 203 cases (62.5%).” 

In the context of numbers, this should be recognized as Americans were bombarded with statistics during the pandemic.

Many of those statistics have since been proven to be inaccurate as counting in real-time can be difficult. However, for three physicians independently assert that 203 cases were directly caused by the vaccine, our government should be paying attention. These are real world medical practitioners observing patient events.

In summary, the study shows the following:

“…325 autopsy cases and 1 organ-restricted autopsy case (heart). The mean age of death was 70.4 years and there were 139 females (42.6%). Most received a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (41%), followed by Sinovac (37%), AstraZeneca (13%), Moderna (7%), Johnson & Johnson (1%), and Sinopharm (1%).”

Lastly, it’s important to point out a phrase oft excluded from mainstream attacks on studies such as this.

One key sentence in the conclusion of this study is the following: “Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings.” 

The frustration of whistleblowers such as Dr. Peter McCullough likely stem from the lack of inquiry by the regulatory bodies. Perhaps a new administration will be more likely to investigate such alarming signals further.

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Pandemic Censorship COVID Crime Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch Vaccines

On Camera: Attorney Who Defended FDA in Court Admits Anti-Ivermectin Campaign was a ‘Mistake’ and an ‘Abuse of Authority’

On Camera: Attorney Who Defended FDA in Court Admits Anti-Ivermectin Campaign was a ‘Mistake’ and an ‘Abuse of Authority’

Original article here

A Department of Justice attorney has been caught admitting in an undercover video that the FDA’s campaign against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment was not only misguided but also an overreach of its authority.

In December 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a stern warning to Americans: “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous.”

This statement, which came during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, was not only controversial but also deeply flawed, as the FDA had previously praised the drug in other contexts.

Ivermectin, a drug that had been safely used in humans since 1966, had been vilified by the FDA during the pandemic, despite its earlier successes in treating various diseases and even being administered to African migrants by the agency itself back in 2015.

Yet, in the face of mounting evidence—105 controlled studies showing a 61% lower risk in early COVID-19 treatment—the FDA clung to its erroneous position, interested in promoting its agenda than in protecting public health.

A group of courageous doctors, refusing to be silenced, filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA, challenging the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block ivermectin’s use in treating COVID-19.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, asserts that the FDA overstepped its authority and interfered unjustifiably with medical practice.

Among the plaintiffs were Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, who accused the FDA of launching a campaign of misinformation. The doctors pointed out that while the FDA had approved ivermectin for human use long before the pandemic, the agency suddenly began spreading falsehoods about its safety when COVID-19 struck.

They argued that this shift in narrative was part of a broader strategy to promote unproven vaccines while suppressing effective treatments.

During the court proceedings, the FDA’s lawyers shockingly admitted that the agency’s recommendations against Ivermectin were only advice and were not mandatory when they told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.

Isaac Belfer, a lawyer representing the FDA, said, “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”

“They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued.

The lawsuit resulted in a significant victory for the doctors, with the FDA being forced to remove its social media posts and consumer advisories against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19.

Belfer, caught on undercover camera by Project Veritas, confessed that the FDA’s actions were an overreach.

“So, what the agency has done… [is] unquestionably beyond its authority. Making a recommendation of what drugs to take or not to take, that’s the practice of medicine. And FDA can’t practice medicine,” Belfer told Project Veritas.

“I think going forward they’ll [FDA] probably be a bit more careful. They [the doctors] got an opinion that was good for them. That kind of limited FDA’s authority. It’s not okay to… actually tell people, ‘You should not take this drug,’” he added.

Drs Apter and Bowden told Project Veritas that suppression of ivermectin led to a prolonged pandemic, and potentially millions in excess COVID deaths.

Apter: “It’s not unreasonable to think that there have been a million unnecessary deaths from COVID in the United States because of the public health agency suppression of effective early treatment with repurposed inexpensive medications.”

Bowden: “If more people had access to early treatment in the form of ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine… we could have nipped the pandemic in the bud.”

Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic Commentary Corruption COVID Lies Links from other news sources. Tony the Fauch Vaccines

Thanks Tony the Fauch.

"Saint" Fauci's COVID religion

Thanks Tony the Fauch. Thanks to Fauci and those who supported them, people will continue to die needlessly.

Mask mandates, social distancing, lockdowns and forced vaccines are still fresh in so many peoples minds. And as we found out, most of those mandates were wasted on healthy people.

We now see that people are not trusting the FDA, CDC, WHO, and especially the NIH. Folks are ignoring all vaccines and if we have another Obama-Biden pandemic people will remember.

 

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Debates Emotional abuse Government Overreach Hate Reprints from others. Sexual Abuse Terrorism Tony the Fauch Weaponization of Government.

The “Right Man” And The Fear Of Losing Face in Politics

Joe's not kidding.

The “Right Man” And The Fear Of Losing Face in Politics

RE: Biden, Pelosi, Jack Smith, Engoron, Letitia James, et al.

Biden joins an elite class.

These excerpts are from Colin Wilson‘s A Criminal History Of Mankind (1984).

Here Wilson discusses the interesting psychological concept of the “Right Man”, which might in other uses also be called the “Dominant Male” or the “Alpha Male”, though we are, of course, speaking here about the negative extremes in behaviour of this human type, not just ordinary dominance or leadership.

The “Right Men” can be domestic household tyrants terrorizing their families but they can be found in all fields of life: in business, politics, art, culture. Everyone must have encountered one: a dominating boss, school headmaster or teacher, army officer, father, son, boyfriend, bully.

Essential here is that the “Right Man” must always have his way and is afraid of losing face above all (“How dare you talk to me this way?”): anything that might be an indication of his infallibility or erroneous ways, something that he can never admit.

And if things don’t exactly go his way, he may scare people into submission by breaking into outbursts of rage or downright violence. He may demand absolute faithfulness from his woman but “play around” himself, since as a God-like “Right Man” this is his divine prerogative (he thinks). Colin Wilson also points out that there are “Right Women” too, so this is not exclusively male behaviour.

“The notion of ‘losing face’ suggests an interesting alternative line of thought. It is obviously connected, for example, with the cruelty of Himmler and Stalin when their absolute authority was questioned. They were both men with a touchy sense of self-esteem, so that their response to any suspected insult was vindictive rage. (Sound familiar? — TPR) Another characteristic of both men was a conviction they they were always right, and a total inability to admit that they might ever be wrong.”

“Himmlers and Stalins are, fortunately, rare; but the type is surprisingly common. The credit for recognising this goes to A.E. Van Vogt who is also the author of a number of brilliant psychological studies. Van Vogt’s concept of the ‘Right Man’ or ‘violent man’ is so important to the understanding of criminality that it deserves to be considered at length…”

[…]

“In 1954, Van Vogt began work on a war novel called The Violent Man, which was set in a Chinese prison camp. The commandant of the camp is one of those savagely authoritarian figures who would instantly, and without hesitation, order the execution of anyone who challenges his authority. Van Vogt was creating the type from observation of men like Hitler and Stalin. And, as he thought about the murderous behaviour of the commandant, he found himself wondering: ‘What could motivate a man like that?’ Why is it that some men believe that anyone who contradicts them is either dishonest or downright wicked? Do they really believe, in their heart of hearts, that they are gods who are incapable of being fallible? If so are, are they in some sense insane, like a man who thinks he is Julius Caesar?”

“Looking around for examples, it struck Van Vogt that male authoritarian behaviour is far too commonplace to be regarded as insanity. […] [For example,] marriage seems to bring out the ‘authoritarian’ personality in many males, according to Van Vogt’s observation.”

[…]

“… ‘the violent man’ or the ‘Right Man’ […] is a man driven by a manic need for self-esteem — to feel he is a ‘somebody’. He is obsessed by the question of ‘losing face’, so will never, under any circumstances, admit that he might be in the wrong.”

[…]

“Equally interesting is the wild, insane jealousy. Most of us are subject to jealousy, since the notion that someone we care about prefers someone else is an assault on our amour propre. But the Right Man, whose self-esteem is like a constantly festering sore spot, fliers into a frenzy at the thought, and becomes capable of murder.”

“Van Vogt points out that the Right Man is an ‘idealist’ — that is, he lives in his own mental world and does his best to ignore aspects of reality that conflict with it. Like the Communists’ rewriting of history, reality can always be ‘adjusted’ later to fit his glorified picture of himself. In his mental world, women are delightful, adoring, faithful creatures who wait patiently for the right man — in both senses of the word — before they surrender their virginity. He is living in a world of adolescent fantasy. No doubt there was something gentle and submissive about the nurse that made her seem the ideal person to bolster his self-esteem, the permanent wife and mother who is waiting in a clean apron when he get back from a weekend with mistress…”

“Perhaps Van Vogt’s most intriguing insight into the Right Man was his discovery that he can be destroyed if ‘the worm turns’ — that is, if his wife or some dependant leaves him. Under such circumstances, he may beg and plead, promising to behave better in the future. If that fails, there may be alcoholism, drug addiction, even suicide. She has kicked out the foundations of his sandcastle. For when a Right Man finds a woman who seems submissive and admiring, it deepens his self-confidence, fills him with a sense of his own worth. (We can see the mechanism in operation with Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.) No matter how badly he treats her, he has to keep on believing that, in the last analysis, she recognises him as the most remarkable man she will ever meet. She is the guarantee of his ‘primacy’, his uniqueness; now it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world thinks. He may desert her and his children; that only proves how ‘strong’ he is, how indifferent to the usual sentimentality. But if she deserts him, he has been pushed back to square one: the helpless child in a hostile universe. ‘Most violent men are failures’, says Van Vogt; so to desert them is to hand them over to their own worst suspicions about themselves. It is this recognition that leads Van Vogt to write: ‘Realise that most Right Men deserve some sympathy, for they are struggling with an unbelievable inner horror; however, if they give way to the impulse to hit or choke, they are losing the battle, are on the the way to the ultimate disaster… of their subjective universe of self-justification.”

“And what happens when the Right Man is not a failure, when his ‘uniqueness’ is acknowledged by the world? Oddly enough, it makes little or no difference. His problem is lack of emotional control and a deep-seated sense of inferiority; so success cannot reach the parts of the mind that are the root of the problem.”

[…]

“The Right Man hates losing face; if he suspects that his threats are not being taken seriously, he is capable of carrying them out, purely for the sake of appearances.”

“Van Vogt makes the basic observation that the central characteristic of the Right Man is the ‘decision to be out of control, in some particular area’. We all have to learn self-control to deal with the real world and other people. But with some particular person — a mother, a wife, a child — we may decide that this effort is not necessary and allow ourselves to explode. But — and here we come to the very heart of the matter — this decision creates, so to speak, a permanent weakpoint in the boiler, the point at which it always bursts.”

[…]

“He feels he [is] justified in exploding, like an angry god. […] he feels he is inflicting just punishment.”

“What is so interesting here is the way the Right Man’s violent emotion reinforces his sense of being justified, and his sense of justification increases his rage. He is locked into a kind of vicious spiral, and he cannot escape until he has spent his fury. […] The Right Man feels that his rage is a storm that has to be allowed to blow itself out, no matter what damage it causes. But this also means that he is the slave of an impulse he cannot control; his property, even the lives of those that he loves, are at the mercy of his emotions. This is part of the ‘unbelievable inner horror’ that Van Vogt talks about.”

[…]

“This is ‘magical thinking’ — allowing a desire or emotion to convince you of something your reason tells you to be untrue. […] Magical thinking provides a key to the Right Man.”

“What causes ‘right mannishness’? Van Vogt suggest that it is because the world has always been dominated by males.”

[…]

“But then, this explanation implies that there is no such thing as a Right Woman—in fact, Van Vogt says as much. This is untrue.” […] The central characteristic of the Right Woman is the same as that of the Right Man: that she is convinced that having her own way is a law of nature and that anyone who opposes this deserves the harshest possible treatment. It is the god (or goddess) syndrome.”

[…]

“… the one thing that becomes obvious in all cases of Right Men is that their attacks are not somehow inevitable’; some of their worst misdemeanours are carefully planned and calculated, and determinedly carried out. The Right Man does these things because he thinks they will help him to achieve his own way, which is what interests him.”

“And this in turn makes it plain that the Right Man problem is a problem of highly dominant people. Dominance is a subject of enormous interest to biologists and zoologists because the percentage of dominant animals — or human beings — seems to be amazingly constant. […] biological studies have confirmed [… that …] for some odd reason, precisely five per cent — one in twenty — of any animal group are dominant — have leadership qualities.”

[…]

“The ‘average’ member of the dominant five per cent sees no reason why he should not be rich and famous too. He experiences anger and frustration at his lack of ‘primacy’, and is willing to consider unorthodox methods of elbowing his way to the fore. This clearly explains a great deal about the rising levels of crime and violence in our society.”

[…]

“We can also see how large numbers of these dominant individuals develop into ‘Right Men’. In every school with five hundred pupils there are about twnety-five dominant ones struggling for primacy. Some of these have natural advantages: they are good athletes, good scholars, good debaters. (And there are, of course plenty of non-dominant pupils who are gifted enough to carry away some of the prizes.) Inevitably, a percentage of the dominant pupils have no particular talent or gift; some may be downright stupid. How is such a person to satisfy his urge to primacy? He will, inevitably, choose to express his dominance in any ways that are possible. If he has good looks or charm, he may be satisfied with the admiration of female pupils. If he has some specific talent which is not regarded as important by his schoolmasters — a good ear for music, a natural gift of observation, a vivid imagination — he may become a lonely ‘outsider’, living in his own private world. (Such individuals may develop into Schuberts, Darwins, Balzacs.) But it is just as likely that he will try to take short-cuts to prominence and become a bully, a cheat or a delinquent.”

“The main problem of these ungifted ‘outsiders’ is that they are bound to feel that the world has treated them unfairly. And the normal human reaction to a sense of unfairness is an upsurge of self-pity. Self-pity and the sense of injustice make them vulnerable and unstable. And we have only to observe such people to see that they are usually their own worst enemies. Their moods alternate between aggressiveness and sulkiness, both of which alienate those who might otherwise be glad to help them. If they possess some degree of charm or intelligence, they may succeed in making themselves acceptable to other people; but sooner or later the resentment and self-pity break through, and lead to mistrust and rejection.”

“The very essence of their problem is the question of self-discipline. Dominant human beings are more impatient than others, because they have more vital energy. Impatience leads them to look for short-cuts. […] Civilisation, as Freud pointed out, demands self-discipline on the part of its members. No one can be licenced to threaten people with carving knives.”

[…]

“When the Right Man explodes into violence, all the energy is wasted. Worse still, it destroys the banks of the canal. So in permitting himself free expression of his negative emotions he is indulging in a process of slow but sure self-erosion — the emotional counterpart of physical incontinence. Without proper ‘drainage’, his inner being turns into a kind of swamp or sewage farm. This is why most of the violent men of history, from Alexander the Great to Stalin, have ended up as psychotics. Without the power to control their negative emotions, they become incapable of any state of sustained well-being.”

See also:
Colin Wilson interview, August 2005

Labels: , , ,

Categories
Biden Pandemic Government Overreach Lies Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch

Four Medications the Government Tried to Restrict During COVID and How to Legally Get Them

Shawn Thew - Pool/Getty Images

Four Medications the Government Tried to Restrict During COVID and How to Legally Get Them

The following content was sponsored by The Wellness Company on the original site, BREITBART.

Just a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable that our government would ever try to restrict access to certain drugs. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, opened our eyes to just how far our government would go to line the pockets of Big Pharma.

Here are four critical medications that might have been hard to get during the pandemic due to pressure from the government and big medicine:

1. IVERMECTIN

Nobel-prize winning medicine demonized as “horse medicine” by the mainstream media and the FDA, Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines.

Depositphotos

2. HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE

An antiviral that has been used for 50 years for the treatment of various diseases, Hydroxychloroquine was smeared by the left and medical establishment after President Donald Trump advocated for it.

Depositphotos

3. GENERIC Z-PAK

One of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in history, Z-Pak is also a key component in early treatment protocols and thus came under fire by some in our crooked medical establishment.

Depositphotos

4. BUDESONIDE

Budesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid breathing treatment used to reduce inflammation in the airways and lungs.

Depositphotos

Access to all of these critical prescription medications were limited or restricted, making them difficult for suffering Americans to get.

2024 is the year to be prepared.

We know what the globalists did in 2020, and we know they will do whatever they can to maintain power, which makes 2024 a potentially very dangerous year for Americans.

Warning: The following is their advertisement if not interested, stop here.

Unlike 2020, you don’t have to be caught unprepared, and that’s where the Wellness Company comes in.

The Wellness Company and its great doctors – like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Drew, Dr. Harvey Risch, and Dr. Jim Thorp – are regularly in the media fighting against the broken medical establishment.

Dr. Thorp, one of the nation’s leading critics of corrupt Big Pharma, believes that now – more than ever – people should be prepared for the next pandemic:

I’ve strongly recommended “stockpiling” critical medications including antibiotics since the turn of the century. This has been an incredible investment as many friends, family, and patients have benefited. Now, in the winter of 2024, this recommendation is even more crucial.

The ultimate safeguard for your health.

Be ready for the next crisis. This Contagion Kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications – including ivermectin, and hydroxychloroquine. The Contagion Kit also includes a guidebook to aid in the safe use of these life-saving medications.

This kit is prescription-only – you can’t find it in any store or pharmacy. Simply fill out a short questionnaire after purchase and a trusted Wellness Company doctor will confirm your suitability and issue your prescription, Contagion Kit.

The Wellness Company Contagion Kit contains:

  • Azithromycin (generic Z-Pak) 250 mg – 12 tablets
  • Budesonide 0.5 mg/2 mL – 10 vials (plus nebulizer included)
  • Hydroxychloroquine 200 mg -20 tablets
  • Ivermectin 12mg – 25 tablets
  • 1 Contagion Kit Guidebook written by the Chief Medical Board for safe use.

What people are saying about the Contagion Kit:

This is the perfect emergency kit at the perfect price. Every home should have this for peace of mind. – Rebecca B.

This is absolutely great! I encourage everyone to buy one of these for emergencies!! – Melody H.

Peace of mind. It is an amazing peace of mind to have this kit in case of emergencies and shortages. The Wellness Company did an excellent job of getting this to me in a timely manner and I and thankful to have it. – Phyllis T.

Don’t be caught unprepared for whatever 2024 sends your way!

Never be without these critical drugs. Get the Wellness Company’s Contagion Kit – which contains all four of these drugs – TODAY!

Order the Wellness Company’s Contagion Kit today!

Categories
Biden Pandemic Corruption COVID Tony the Fauch

Fauci’s Damning Testimony to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic

Robert W Malone MD, MS on Substack

WASHINGTON — Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) issued the following statement after day one of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s two-day, 14-hour transcribed interview:

“Dr. Fauci’s testimony today uncovered drastic and systemic failures in America’s public health systems. While leading the nation’s COVID-19 response and influencing public narratives, he simultaneously had no idea what was happening under his own jurisdiction at NIAID. Dr. Fauci signed off on all domestic and foreign research grants without reviewing the proposals and admitted that he was unaware if NIAID conducted oversight of the laboratories they fund. Clearly, the American people and the United States government are operating with completely different expectations about the responsibilities of our public health leaders and the accountability of our public health agencies.

It is also concerning that the face of our nation’s response to the world’s worst public health crisis ‘does not recall’ key details about COVID-19 origins and pandemic-era policies. Nearly 1.2 million Americans lost their lives to a potentially preventable pandemic. I look forward to asking Dr. Fauci further questions about mandates, his role in prompting the ‘Proximal Origin’ publication, and his policy positions related to masks and lockdowns. Tomorrow’s testimony will continue the Select Subcommittee’s effort to deliver the answers Americans demand and deserve.”

DR. FAUCI DAY 1 TAKEAWAYS

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic questioned Dr. Anthony Fauci for seven hours yesterday (Jan 8, 2024) about his role during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Fauci’s testimony uncovered drastic and systemic failures in America’s public health systems.

Key highlights by the Select Subcommittee from Dr. Fauci’s testimony:

  • Dr. Fauci claimed he “did not recall” pertinent COVID-19 information or conversations more than 100 times.
  • Dr. Fauci profusely defended his previous testimony where he statedthat NIH does not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
  • He repeatedly played semantics with the definition of gain-of-function in an attempt to avoid conceding that NIH funded this dangerous research.
  • Dr. Fauci testified that he signed off on every foreign and domestic NIAID grant without reviewing the proposals.
  • A 2020 email, previously released by the Select Subcommittee, proved Dr. Fauci was aware of dangerous gain-of-function research occurring in Wuhan, China. Today, he backtracked by arguing he should not have stated that as “fact.”
  • Dr. Fauci was unable to confirm if NIAID has ANY mechanisms to conduct oversight of the foreign laboratories they fund.
  • Clearly, the American people and the United States government are operating with completely different expectations about the responsibilities of our public health leaders and the accountability of our public health agencies. More accountability coming soon!

Why is this guy NOT in jail? — TPR

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab COVID Elections Faked news How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Medicine Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch

Oh, great! WEF to warn of a ‘Disease X’ with ’20x more fatalities’ than Covid-19

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual confab in Davos, Switzerland is set to kick off next week, and the program is rife with all of the usual suspects. Our aspiring global rulers are set to have a grand time once more calling for our collective enslavement, which of course is necessary for the “greater good.”

The 2024 program is one for the ages. Attendees will watch Pfizer’s Albert Bourla and Open AI’s Sam Altman talk about Artificial Intelligence (AI). They’ll see depopulation advocate Bill “Bugman” Gates advancing the climate hoax. John Kerry will appear on four different stages to discuss the “energy transition.” We will also see Klaus Schwab sit down for a 1 on 1 with the second highest ranking Chinese government official.

But one panel in particular sticks out: Preparing for Disease X. The topic is both incredibly vague and incredibly disturbing.

The description for the discussion reads: “With fresh warnings from the World Health Organization that an unknown ‘Disease X’ could result in 20 times more fatalities than the coronavirus pandemic, what novel efforts are needed to prepare healthcare systems for the multiple challenges ahead?”

The panel will feature a high-profile lineup that includes WHO director “Dr” Tedros and the chairman of AstraZeneca.

The concept of a Disease X was adopted by the World Health Organization in 2018. Tedros, Dr Anthony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar of the eugenicist Wellcome Trust, and many high profile individuals on the forefront of Covid hysteria policy have been involved in advancing the Disease X hypothesis over the years.

Now, it’s easy for normal people to dismiss this lunacy. But given the powerful, maniacal minds populating the Davos gathering, it’s worth maintaining a level of situational awareness surrounding these events, as they can often offer some insight into the unguarded mindset of these technocratic tyrants.

“No possibility of a vaccine being available in the first year”

On this topic, it’s worth recalling that another infamous predictive panel was announced at the 2019 WEF Davos conference. That panel concluded with the launch announcement of Event 201.

Event 201 was an amazingly predictive  “war game” simulation in which a fictional coronavirus passed from an animal reservoir to humans.

Just weeks before the onset of COVID Mania, some of the most maniacal, power-hungry forces on the planet got together to war-game a “fictional” coronavirus with “no possibility of a vaccine being available in the first year,” warning of a “similar pandemic in the future.”

Full story here

Sounds a bit familiar, huh?

Event 201 became known for its impeccable timing. Just weeks after the simulation occurred, full-blown pandemic hysteria broke out.

The 15 participants in the Event 201 simulation included an interesting bunch:

  1. George Gao, the director of the Chinese CDC
  2. Hasti Taghi, a vice president for NBC
  3. Avril Haines, the former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency
  4. Chris Elias, a director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  5. Timothy Grant Evans, a former World Health Organization and Rockefeller Foundation official
  6. Lavan Thiru, the director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore
  7. Adrian Thomas, VP at Johnson & Johnson
  8. Brad Connett, the president of Henry Schein, Inc., a major distributor of health care products
  9. Jane Halton, an executive with Australia’s second largest bank
  10. Stephen Redd, a top CDC official
  11. Sofia Borges, a top official at the UN Foundation
  12. Eduardo Martinez, a senior executive at UPS
  13. Matthew Harrington, the COO of Edelman, a marketing and PR firm
  14. Martin Knuchel, a senior director at Lufthansa
  15. Latoya D. Abbott, a senior employee for Marriott International

Of those 15 players, 13 worked in the upper echelons of private organizations or government agencies that would almost immediately witness an exponential monetary benefit or the tremendous absorption of political power.

Will the global ruling class attempt to foment another worldwide hysteria at Davos 2024?

 

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Crime Economy Education Elections Faked news Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Media Woke Medicine Science The Law Tony the Fauch Warfare WOKE Work Place

Not a Nothingburger: My Statement to Congress on Censorship.

Exsposiing corruption.

Not a Nothingburger: My Statement to Congress on Censorship
The key question in censorship is always the same. Who’s doing it?
MATT TAIBBI

For time reasons, I had to cut my actual address a bit short Thursday. This statement, which began with a nod to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, is what was entered into the congressional record:

November 30, 2023

Chairman Jordan, ranking member Plaskett, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Exactly one year ago today I had my first look at the documents that came to be known as the Twitter Files. One of the first things Michael, Bari Weiss and I found was this image, showing that Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya had been placed on a “trends blacklist”:

This was not because he was suspected of terrorism or incitement or of being a Russian spy or a bad citizen in any way. Dr. Bhattacharya’s crime was doing a peer-reviewed study that became the 55th-most read scientific paper of all time, which showed the WHO initially overstated Covid-19 infection fatality rates by a factor of 17. This was legitimate scientific opinion and should have been an important part of the public debate, but Bhattacharya and several of his colleagues instead became some of the most suppressed people in America in 2020 and 2021.

That’s because by then, even true speech that undermined confidence in government policies had begun to be considered a form of disinformation, precisely the situation the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

When Michael and I testified before the good people of this Committee in March we mentioned this classically Orwellian concept of “malinformation” — material that is somehow both true and wrong — as one of many reasons everyone should be concerned about these digital censorship programs.

But there’s a more subtle reason people across the spectrum should care about this issue.

Former Executive Director of the ACLU Ira Glasser once explained to a group of students why he didn’t support hate speech codes on campuses. The problem, he said, was “who gets to decide what’s hateful… who gets to decide what to ban,” because “most of the time, it ain’t you.”

The story that came out in the Twitter Files, and for which more evidence surfaced in both the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit and this Committee’s Facebook Files releases, speaks directly to Glasser’s concerns.

There’s been a dramatic shift in attitudes about speech, and many politicians now clearly believe the bulk of Americans can’t be trusted to digest information. This mindset imagines that if we see one clip from RT we’ll stop being patriots, that once exposed to hate speech we’ll become bigots ourselves, that if we read even one Donald Trump tweet we’ll become insurrectionists.

Having come to this conclusion, the kind of people who do “anti-disinformation” work have taken upon themselves the paternalistic responsibility to sort out for us what is and is not safe. While they see great danger in allowing anyone else to read controversial material, it’s taken for granted that they’ll be immune to the dangers of speech.

This leads to the one inescapable question about new “anti-disinformation” programs that is never discussed, but must be: who does this work? Stanford’s Election Integrity Project helpfully made a graphic showing the “external stakeholders” in their content review operation. It showed four columns: government, civil society, platforms, media:

One group is conspicuously absent from that list: people. Ordinary people! Whether America continues the informal sub rosa censorship system seen in the Twitter Files or formally adopts something like Europe’s draconian new Digital Services Act, it’s already clear who won’t be involved. There’ll be no dockworkers doing content flagging, no poor people from inner city neighborhoods, no single moms pulling multiple waitressing jobs, no immigrant store owners or Uber drivers, etc. These programs will always feature a tiny, rarefied sliver of affluent professional-class America censoring a huge and ever-expanding pool of everyone else.

Take away the high-fallutin’ talk about “countering hate” and “reducing harm” and “anti-disinformation” is just a bluntly elitist gatekeeping exercise. If you prefer to think in progressive terms, it’s class war. The math is simple. If one small demographic over here has broad control over the speech landscape, and a great big one over there does not, it follows that one group will end up with more political power than the other. Which one is the winner? To paraphrase Glasser, it probably ain’t you.

It isn’t just one side or the other that will lose if these programs are allowed to continue. It’s pretty much everyone, which is why these programs must be defunded before it’s too late.