Mass Media and the Taboo Power
The Incompatibility of Censorship with Science and Democracy
I came across the yard sign pictured above on a walk through my neighborhood a few weeks ago, on March 9, 2021. There was something lonely and mournful about this sign. Those are the emotions that stir in my heart at any rate. What force conjured this sign into place upon the lawn? One year ago, I had never heard of Dr. Fauci, and not many others had either. But the force of the lockdowns that swept the world one year ago also swept Dr. Anthony Fauci into the consciousness of the entire country. Fauci has been a consistent presence in the media, calmly reminding us to stay locked down, to wear a mask, to wear two masks, to take the vaccines, to stay socially distanced. He has become the most prominent spokesman for the measures that have transformed our lives in unprecedented ways. In this isolated, locked down world Fauci has done so much to create and perpetuate, this yard sign seeks to lift our spirits with a playful honk of a car horn. We are alone together, united by our trust and admiration for this pillar of integrity, science, and sensible protection.
For many, this sign may still seem a marker of solidarity and togetherness, despite our human world having been destroyed by fear. But I no longer feel the way I once did about Dr. Fauci. I felt like many Americans probably did back in March, 2020. In the absence of cogent or coherent leadership issuing from the White House, along came this man with a lightly accented gravelly voice who wore glasses and spoke in complete sentences. It felt so reassuring to have an adult in the room — someone whose background apparently had something to do with medicine or understanding disease and stopping a pandemic. After all, he had “doctor” in front of his name. Thank goodness there was someone in authority who would understand science and logic, and give us good advice.
The crystal began to crack for me when Fauci reversed his position on masks. At first, he reminded us that science does not support the efficacy of facemasks in preventing transmission of a virus. I learned about this recommendation in April, 2020, and I fact-checked at the time, just to be certain. Sure enough, the evidence was overwhelming — after numerous studies conducted over the course of decades, the verdict was consistent — masking one’s face did nothing to prevent the spread of a cold or flu virus. Then in June, 2020, Fauci announced to the world that he had lied about the facemasks. His new story was that facemasks really did help protect people against transmission, but he deliberately lied about this to the public, hoping to dissuade regular people from buying and wearing masks to protect themselves. This would ensure there were enough masks available for healthcare workers.
It didn’t make any sense. Hospitals were not buying masks at stores, where the public could intercept them. They would be buying wholesale. Also, I had already verified his previous statement through my own research — it wasn’t a lie, it was the truth. He was lying now. At the very least, Fauci had just admitted he would lie to the people any time he felt he had a good reason to do so. To paraphrase his statement: “I was lying to you then, because I wanted you to behave in a certain way. Now I want you to behave in a different way, so I’m telling you the opposite is true from what I told you before. But I was only lying then — I’m not lying now.” When I hear that, I have to ask myself, “Which time were you lying, and which time were you not lying? Are you ever not lying?” The only way to tell was to do my own research — which I had already done. He was lying the second time, not the first time.
But that’s not what the rest of the world seemingly concluded. In the weeks that followed, mask mandates were rolled out across the country and the world in the most intrusive, personal invasion of individual boundaries I had ever witnessed en masse. A year later, when Fauci switched to recommending 2 masks and 3 feet of social distance after an entire year of 1 mask and 6 feet of social distance, nobody batted an eye. Also, nobody seemed to mind that Fauci had initially informed us all in January 2020 that “asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks,” (the only possible justification for either lockdowns or mask mandates). Nobody minded that on February 28, 2020, he had advised that “overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”
As with masks, Fauci’s original statements on transmission and lethality were historically correct and have proven to still be correct in regards to SarsCov2. But nobody minds that now that he says the opposite. A zeitgeist has coalesced, the ethos of which commands that public health authorities must be obeyed without question, no matter what they say — even if their new position was a 180 degree reversal of their previous position. Fauci in particular has assumed the status of some kind of saint. His word is inviolable, his character unimpeachable, despite contradicting himself and stating that he had lied to the country. How had this happened?
In this article, my intention is to provide an answer to that and other questions by exploring the phenomenon of taboo. Primarily promulgated through censorship and narrative manipulation — an established taboo creates a mass consciousness that is hostile to scientific inquiry, hostile to democratic rights and principles, and ripe for authoritarian rule. It’s not enough for the mind just to hear a carefully crafted and repetitive media message in the formation of a dogmatic and one-sided reality. Authoritarianism also requires the power of taboo: Opposing messages should be difficult to access (through censorship), but more than this, the penalty for accessing those messages and repeating them to others must be social banishment or shunning. The taboo is contagious — to partake of it makes one unclean, unwholesome, reprehensible. If a taboo can be attached to an idea or opinion the entire consciousness of a people can be altered to suit the needs of those with the power to set and define that taboo.
In the spirit of science and democracy, I will be addressing a number of taboos that have been set and promulgated in American society over the past year. I do not intent to convince the reader of any particular truth regarding whether the mainstream narrative is true or false, or whether the taboo is true or false. I mean to use these taboos as case studies to demonstrate that issues of vital scientific importance and public interest can be distorted via the taboo, censorship, and narrative process, to the detriment of scientific knowledge and democratic governance — for the benefit of the powerful.
Science is a method of inquiry that seeks to arrive at truth and dispel falsehood wherever possible; it requires that all hypotheses and theories are challenged. There are no sacred ideas and no sacred truths. Whether conducting experiments in keeping with the scientific method, or simply challenging and refining beliefs and ideas through discourse, all inquiries are welcome. Likewise, with democracy, the pillars of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion are crucial checks on dictatorial power. The authorities must always be questioned. They must always be held to account and must always be made to answer for their actions and policies. In addition, the people must be free to gather, to communicate with each other openly, and must be free to live according to their creed.
I am a believer in the importance of science and democracy in enriching our human world and providing liberation of the human spirit. If you believe likewise, I invite you to explore the new taboos of the Corona Era with me. I will only have enough room to summarize the new taboos, so I encourage you to follow the links provided and consider for yourself the in depth information contained within these linked articles and interviews. These links are also collected together at the end of this article for easy reference. In fully considering these taboos — which in the name of democracy and science, have no business being regarded as such — the consequence and harm of barring these ideas from the public discourse shall be made clear.
~
Saint Fauci and Saint Gates: 21st Century Oracles
With prompting from my neighborhood yard sign, let us begin with Saint Fauci himself. He seems to have ascended to his new station in the public consciousness with remarkably little scrutiny. Questioning the ethics, integrity, and honesty of Dr. Fauci is the first taboo to address in this article. Some who inhabit mainstream consciousness maybe be vaguely aware that Fauci has become a figure of disparagement among those who oppose the covid regimes of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, and forced or coerced vaccines. Opposition to these measures is, of course, the primary taboo, and I will refer the reader to my article What to Make of Covid and the Lockdowns to dissect the case against such them. Further inquiry is provided in my follow-up article, Why Are They Doing This? which investigates possible reasons for the implementation of these counterproductive authoritarian measures. Please refer to those articles if, in reading this article, you wonder why I believe those measures are wrong, imposed for corrupt reasons, and that SarsCov2 is much less dangerous than we’ve been led to believe.
The article you’re reading now will explore smaller, individual taboos that combine to form the fuller picture. Opposition to Fauci is not just based on his status as a highly visible public advocate of these measures. His history and career are controversial for other reasons. Dr. Anthony Fauci (dubbed “the J. Edgar Hoover of Public Health” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) has worked at NIAID (the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) for 52 years, and has served as director of that agency for 36 years, since 1984. NIAID is a branch of the NIH (the National Institutes of Health) under the US Department of Health & Human Services. But it is not merely Fauci’s longevity in office that likens him to Hoover. Kennedy makes the case that Fauci presides over a corrupt pharmaceutical empire, astride a network of grants, patents, research institutions, and corporate beneficiaries, riddled with conflicting interests.
Kennedy lays out the case against Fauci in an in-depth interview with US patent expert, inventor, and businessman David Martin (the transcript of the interview is included in the link, along with the interview in video format). Through Martin’s examination of patent filings, he became aware of the nexus of control and influence connecting Fauci and NIAID, DARPA funded research, the pharmaceutical industry, and the distribution of funding to individual and institutional researchers. Martin describes Fauci’s level of control over pharmaceutical research and development as racketeering, noting that through NIAID patents, Fauci controls the pathogens themselves, controls the means of production in both detection and therapy for each pathogen, allocates the market beneficiaries, picking winners and losers, and then sets the prices. Martin has detailed the workings of this system in an extensive document available for download at his website.
Martin and Kennedy explain how as head of NIAID, Fauci controls a $6 billion annual budget from the HHS, with $1.7 billion additional funding from DAPRA, the technological arm of the US military. That money is used to study viruses and develop drugs to kill those viruses. NIAID then sells the technology to pharmaceutical companies while NIAID retains half the patent. Portions of the patent are also awarded to individuals working in the agency.
It may come as a shock to some readers that either NIAID or individuals working at NIAID would be permitted to hold patents on drugs and vaccines invented in their capacity as agents in the employ of the US government. This was made possible by the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which permitted federal agencies, as well as employees of those agencies, to own patents developed by those agencies with unlimited royalty rights.
These unlimited individual patent royalties were eventually capped at $150,000 per individual, per patent, per year as a result of a 2002 scandal regarding Interleukin-2, an HIV treatment drug created at NIAID. The inspector general’s investigation revealed that Interleukin-2 was known to cause various harmful side effects, including depression, suicidal ideation, and capillary leaks, but that this information was not disclosed to patients. Dr. Fauci was a patent holder of Interleukin-2, and was implicated in concealing his conflict of interest as a patent holder in promotion of the pharmaceutical product to patients.
Following this fiasco, Fauci pledged publicly that he would donate all of his future profits from Interleukin-2 to charity, but he signed no written agreement to do so. He also did not indicate what kind of charity he would donate to, and follow-up investigations regarding this pledge have never occurred. Fauci earns $417,608 per year, the highest paid of all 4 million federal employees. It is unknown how many private investments he owns in patents originating from NIAID, or the extent of royalty income he receives from them.
The entire structure of NIAID, over which Fauci presides, is festooned with conflicts of interests. Not only does NIAID create the drugs and profit off them if they succeed in the market, and not only do individuals working at NIAID benefit financially as individuals, but NIAID also controls the flow of funding for new research, and directs funding to the very research institutions that conduct the safety trials of the drugs NIAID creates. NIAID owns over 2000 pharmaceutical patents and has a direct interest in ensuring that these products are widely used, with a corresponding interest in suppressing challenges to the safety and efficacy of these products.
NIH, the umbrella organization that contains NIAID, even owns half the patent on the Moderna vaccine, and six of Fauci’s top aides in that agency stand to collect $150,000 in annual royalties on the vaccine. Royalties flowing from this patent will also apply to further gene-therapy pharmaceuticals utilizing Moderna’s mRNA protocol. Fauci has a direct conflict of interest in advising the public to take these vaccines due to this ownership stake in the patent, which will produce a considerable financial windfall for the agency if widely adopted. Prior to 2020, Fauci did not hold the prominent public role he now holds in persuading the public to use products his agency and staff hold patents for. The danger of uncritically accepting Fauci’s statements and recommendations should now be apparent. But besmirching the character of Fauci has become taboo, and such critiques are censored from mainstream media news.
The contours of our prevailing censorship regime are further explored in this conversation between Kennedy and Naomi Wolf, who have found themselves deplatformed and virtually alone on the American Left for sounding the alarm regarding authoritarian rule by executive decree, using covid as the excuse. Wolf refers to this current regime as biofascism, as she and Kennedy catalog the suspension of constitutional rights and the web of funding connecting pharmaceutical companies, big tech, Fauci, the mainstream media, politicians, and Bill Gates that determine public policy and censorship decisions. This pattern of undue influence and conflict of interests are consequently not reported on or scrutinized by the media institutions who are directly funded through this network of conflicted interest.
That brings us to another sainted angel of the corona era, Bill Gates. As with Fauci, critiques of Gates have also become taboo. He is invited on mainstream media outlets to instruct the world that they will not be allowed to live free human lives again until the whole world takes the vaccines he promotes. Through his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he has spent over $250 million bankrolling a wide array of mainstream media outlets, along with several times that amount for the WHO and CDC. Through Gates’ funding, the WHO and the media outlets are also captured by a conflict of interest, and Gates’ agenda is faithfully promoted by both institutions.
These investments are just the tip of the iceberg of the Gates empire. The probing documentary by independent journalist James Corbett, Who Is Bill Gates? details the history of Gates’ monopolistic business practices in both tech and public health. It demonstrates how Gates has been able to cloak his unprecedented level of control over global public health under the cover of philanthropy and charitable giving, a public relations move that has successfully rehabilitated his image in the eyes of many. The full-length documentary is well-worth watching, and free to view. It provides a clear picture of the Gates empire and the vision that guides it: top-down control of public and individual health, centered on digital surveillance and synthetic biological modification, all subject to centralized control.
A shorter exposé by Russell Brand summarizes Gates’ additional ventures. The Gates empire is heavily invested in petroleum, with large stakes in the major oil companies of Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell. He has also quietly become the largest owner of farmland in the United States, which combined with his investments in GMO crops, seed patents, synthetic foods, and AI farmworkers, provides a clear indication of Gates’ intentions for the future of food in the US and elsewhere. His commanding investment position in an array of companies that produce industrial food products, fertilizers, and pesticides, such as Monsanto, Bayer, Kellog, Phillip Morris, Unilever, and Coca-Cola, completes the picture. His efforts to transform agriculture in India and Africa are a demonstration of his plan to centralize the management of farms and ownership of seeds, which are to be genetically modified and patented. Farmworkers and farm owners themselves are to be financialized, with a system of loans and debt binding them in obedience to the centrally controlled corporate structure, which is to administer allocations of farming resources via AI algorithms.
The unquestioning trust afforded to Fauci and Gates have been key components in the rollout of lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing, business closures, church closures, school closures, mass impoverishment, and the other monumental changes imposed on society in the past year. For many people, it does not occur to imagine that Fauci and Gates have a vested interest in public policy with their own agendas and personal interests. Because it has become taboo to question their motives, it is assumed that they are living saints — devoid of any interests at all — other than the selfless betterment of mankind. The result is that the statements of these unelected men come to carry the force of law. We are at the mercy of their whims, whether virtuous or compromised. Only breaking the taboo against questioning their integrity offers relief from this condition of servitude — and a restoration of free and informed democratic choice.
~
Understanding the Mainstream Media
Before exploring the remaining taboos this article addresses, it is first necessary to come to terms with the power and operations of mainstream media institutions. These are the primary entities responsible for creating and promulgating the taboos that bind the contours of our minds and imaginations.
One reason the media is so successful in establishing official narratives and taboos is because many people find it hard to believe or understand that the media is controlled and coordinated. They do not imagine that the rich and powerful, acting through corporate and financial instruments, collaborate together to shape the media landscape in ways that redound to their continued and expanding power. It is commonly believed that if such relationships of power and influence existed they would be exposed by enterprising journalists.
The first thing to understand is that these agendas are indeed exposed and reported by journalists, and have been for many decades — but the reports of those journalists are not disseminated in the mainstream media, or when they do appear, the stories are generally buried, ignored, and forgotten. A large part of how the mainstream media controls the narrative is by choosing which stories to amplify and which stories to silence, censor, or sideline. Disturbingly, in recent years the mainstream media has not been content to merely filter the proliferation of certain stories and in deciding what counts as news. It has now become commonplace to read an article or watch a newscast in which the reporter literally tells the viewer what opinion they ought to have on any given topic — or which opinion has been declared correct by presiding experts, and which opinion has been declared taboo.
If that weren’t enough, we are now inundated with the phenomenon of mainstream “fact-checker” institutions that promulgate glib and misleading declarations of truth and untruth, concealing their bias and conflicts of interest. They typically skewer their targets by way of misrepresentations and logical fallacies employed with the sole objective of applying the moniker of “truth” to the mainstream narrative. Sometimes falsehoods promulgated by the media as part of their controlling narrative are so blatantly untrue, they cannot even be propped up by the spin of biased fact-checkers. In such cases, the previous falsehood is simply “memory-holed,” erased from history, never to be mentioned again.
To provide a simple recent example, the media narrative insisted that mask-free crowds of Superbowl fans in Florida were “superspreaders” whose behavior would result in an eruption of new covid cases and deaths in February. President Biden even mused on whether he could find a way to ban all domestic travel to and from Florida. When the rise in cases and deaths failed to materialize, members of the media did not acknowledge their error. They most certainly did not acknowledge the incompatibility of this evidence with their narrative regarding the necessity of masks, lockdowns, and social distancing. Instead, the entire episode simply disappeared from the discourse as if it had never happened. The exact scenario repeated itself a month later when Texas ended their lockdowns and repealed their mask mandates. The media screamed and howled, predicting mass casualties, and then memory-holed their predictions when the deaths failed to materialize. These are just two instances of media narrative amnesia in the course of the past year, but there are countless other examples. In psychology, such deceptive techniques are referred to as gaslighting tactics.
To understand how it is possible for mainstream media to slant the news in this way, it is helpful to dispel an old narrative about what we used to think of as “the press.” Back in the day of newspapers, there was an archetype of the enterprising journalist, always investigating, always looking for the next big story — the one people would want to read about — the one that would sell the most papers. But even in those days, the newspapers didn’t make their profits from selling papers — they made their money from advertising, just like the news media does today. It’s true the more papers they sold, the more the market value of their ad space went up — but their primary clients were always the advertisers, not the news consumers. Good journalism could help sell papers and keep the market value of ad slots high, but it wouldn’t be worth doing if that journalism alienated the paper’s true clients in the business world.
This dynamic remains today, now expanded to include online news publications, television, and social media in particular. These businesses make most of their money by selling advertising. Although many ads are placed in order to persuade the viewer to buy a product, that is becoming less important, especially when it comes to platforms that control the flow of information about the world and what is to be regarded as true, as with news publications. Perhaps you have found yourself watching TV news and observed a commercial for Goldman Sachs, or Lockheed Martin. These companies are not trying to sell products to people watching CNN. They are not even trying to improve their reputation with viewers of CNN. They are literally purchasing CNN.
This is also nothing new — just an old truth in modern form. In 1915, for instance, JP Morgan interests purchased editorial control of 25 influential newspapers, thereby gaining control of news regarding World War I and The US relationship to it, as well as other financial and industrial matters, in furtherance of their private and corporate interests. Later, in 1934, JP Morgan joined with Du Pont and General Motors to sponsor a coup d’état plot to overthrow President Roosevelt and install a fascist government. When the plot failed, exposed by General Smedley Butler, Morgan’s media outlets covered up the coup attempt with biased reporting and narrative warfare. The taboo against acknowledging the attempted corporate attempt to replace democracy with fascism kept this story out of the public consciousness for decades.
Today, if Goldman Sachs agrees to buy an advertising slot on CNN, they are purchasing editorial influence regarding what kinds of news coverage will appear on CNN. They are purchasing influence regarding how CNN will depict certain political figures and social movements. If CNN produces anything contrary to the interests of Goldman Sachs, they risk losing that contract. We rarely see journalists on screen; we see reporters. We see hired actors commissioned to read a script and deliver a message, often the exact same script at different media outlets and companies. Even our politicians have become hired actors so commissioned. This was recognized officially in 2020 when Andrew Cuomo was actually awarded an Emmy for his superb performance in playing the role of a governor on TV news.
It’s telling that we gradually came to refer to this industry as “the media” in recent decades, rather than the press, or even the news. Using the term “media” reflects the reality that public perception is created in more ways than just through the news; it created and shaped by any carrier of information, whether television, social media, film, advertising, or music. All of these expressions carry a message, sometimes communicated directly, sometimes communicated through symbol, context, or metaphor. In the age of media, it is no longer important to produce content the consumer desires. Instead, fear and desire are manufactured in the consumer, and content is then fed to them accordingly. The consumed media content is prepared with the primary purpose of modifying the behaviors and beliefs of the consumer as desired by the promulgator.
As the decades progressed, the major American news outlets entered into mergers with film studios, entertainment companies, and publishers of every kind of media, now consolidated into 5 major corporations. All of it is controlled and influenced by corporate donors, and on every level, pressure is exerted to communicate a certain narrative. In the Church Committee hearings of the 1970s we also learned that US intelligence agencies had deliberately infiltrated media outlets under Project Mockingbird, launched in 1948. There is no indication that this infiltration ever came to an end. These intelligence agencies have since established working relationships with the major social media companies early on in their development. It is clear to any media observer that American mainstream media will never report content, particularly narrative content, contrary to the interests and desires of intelligence agencies and the national security state. Meanwhile, the social media companies coordinate their increasingly severe censorship regimes in coordination with national security interests as well as those of other powerful political and business interests.
Media companies are also influenced through direct contributions, designated as charitable donations. As mentioned earlier, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donates millions of dollars to every major news and media outlet in the United States, and spreads that money around abroad as well. In the very media outlets Gates purchases with such donations, these expenditures are characterized as altruism. In reality, every dollar spent in the form of charitable donation purchases influence and power. You will never hear a negative word about Bill Gates in any of the media institutions he finances. And every “fact-checking” and “debunking” operation will dutifully report that Gates has been falsely and unfairly maligned whenever he is critiqued. Those operations are not independent and unbiased. Indeed, they are funded by the very same people and institutions that fund the rest of the mainstream media.
There exists a tightly woven network of very wealthy people who are cross-invested in all the major corporations on the national and international stage. They sit on multiple boards of directors and rotate in and out of company positions and lobbying firms. They finance the campaigns of every politician they can, purchasing influence with every million dollars spent. All of this money has completely captured the media institutions, including the news outlets. These media outlets are the crown jewels of the corporate empire, not because of their capacity to earn money, but because of their capacity to shape perception and belief, which can influence the behavior of millions, sway elections, and manufacture consent. By creating realities in the minds of viewers, those realities are then manifested in the physical world. This can be leveraged to create profits when needed, to direct the flow of money, and to ensure the success of certain undertakings and the failure of others.
At no point is this tremendous power permitted to be jeopardized by independent reporting. Direct editorial oversight is rarely needed; the vetting and hiring process molds the container for acceptable content ahead of time. For the most part, the journalists and reporters selected by this process are already attuned to the narrative signals that will guide their work before creating that work. In the infrequent cases where this hiring process fails to stop an unwanted story, the power of the media can be used to silence and smear independent reporting whenever it becomes a threat.
Within the context of these media empires, it is decided what the parameters of debate will be. The general public is encouraged to divide into extremely polarized camps of roughly equal size, separated mainly regarding issues of identity and lifestyle, each convinced that the other camp is poised to completely eliminate and oppress their own identity group and lifestyle if they ever gain power. The true agenda is that which is never debated but implicitly agreed upon by all media and political actors: An agenda of increased financialization, corporate control, technocracy, militarization, wealth stratification, and national security intelligence protection. All members of the ruling class can agree on those objectives as they are mutually beneficial to all members of that class. The business titans will vie with each other for greater shares of influence while remaining united in overall worldview and purpose.
The phenomenon of media control is nothing new. Edward Bernays, the nephew of famed psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, used principles of psychological manipulation to mobilize support for the US in World War I, convince a generation of women to smoke cigarettes and value thinness, and help overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954, among other PR endeavors. He literally wrote the book on propaganda in 1928, simply titled: Propaganda. In his words:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”
This ruling power is not secret, though it is also not advertised. It is organized openly, and its members can be located in the ranks of institutions such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commission. In this excellent resource entitled The American Empire and its Media, the network of leading media figures and institutions are listed and charted relative to membership in these three exclusive organizations, along with corresponding members in influential military, government, academic, NGO, research, and finance institutions.
I doubt it will be surprising to many readers of this article that powerful leaders of the United States and the Western world would congregate in groups and coordinate their interests and objectives, nor would it be surprising that leading media companies and figures would operate in tandem with them. What does seem difficult for many to believe, is that the agenda agreed upon by these leaders might be contrary to the interests of ordinary people, or that such leaders would resort to deception and manipulation to implement these agendas.
And yet we have seen an uncritical canonization of Fauci and Gates at the hands of the media, despite the numerous conflicts of interest that checker the past and present of both figures. Such lack of scrutiny would not be afforded to an elected politician — yet Fauci and Gates have more power than elected politicians, and they have the media to thank for it. The people they rule are left to inhabit the authoritarian biosecurity regime Fauci, Gates, and other members of their ruling technocratic class have dreamed up for us.
~
The Origin of the Species
Before we move on from the subject of Fauci, there is one more taboo to explore in relation to him. This taboo is the suggestion that SarsCov2 originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology — whether created there as a genetically-engineered virus, or whether it was a naturally-occurring virus held in storage there. As early as April, 2020 the following article appeared in Newsweek: Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with US Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research. Chances are, you missed this article, because it was swiftly buried and forgotten by the rest of the mainstream press. The article details the trail of Fauci’s funding of Chinese and American research into coronaviruses found in bats, including gain-of-function research on these viruses through Peter Dazsak’s EcoHealth Alliance.
It wasn’t until January, 2021 that Fox News finally picked up the story. In the linked 15-minute investigative report, gain-of-function research on coronaviruses is explained as a process by which bat coronaviruses are genetically modified to become more deadly, more easily transmissible, and able to infect humans. As with all reckless weapons of mass destruction, the justification for conducting such studies is to create the weapon so that methods of stopping the weapon can also be learned. This research was funded at Fauci’s direction through NIAID, which in turn was funded by DARPA, the technological arm of the US military.
In 2014 the Obama Administration issued a moratorium on funding this research due to safety and security issues (primarily concerns that accidental leaks could result in the virus escaping and infecting the public at large). Rather than obey the moratorium, Fauci subcontracted this research to EcoHealth Alliance, led by Peter Daszak, from 2014–2020. Daszak in turn subcontracted the gain-of-function research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology over the same time period. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance has also received $39 million from the Pentagon.
Why would risky biological weapons research be conducted under the pretext of defense, and then be subcontracted to the nation’s premier rival on the world stage? The mystery endures. Once the project arrived at Wuhan, researchers built chimeric variants of coronaviruses (i.e. viruses constructed from the parts of several different viruses from different species of animals) found in bat feces. They successfully infected human cells with these variants, and found that these infected human cells were then able to infect other human cells with the new virus as well.
In February, 2020, Daszak issued an open letter in The Lancet denouncing any possibility that SarsCov2 could have originated from the Wuhan lab as “conspiracy theory.” One might wonder how Daszak could have known this to be the case at that time, when no investigation had yet been conducted. It is certain, however, that Daszak would have recognized it as contrary to his interests (and those funding him, such as Fauci, DARPA through the Pentagon). These interests would be harmed by any determination that the virus escaped from the lab Daszak was sponsoring to create the precise type of virus in question. It’s quite understandable that Daszak would greatly desire the “from nature” origin story of the virus to be true instead, and it’s understandable that he would be motivated to promote such an interpretation.
It is less understandable why anyone would entrust a man such as Daszak, with a facially obvious conflict of interest, to lead any kind of investigation regarding the origins of the virus. Yet that was exactly what happened when Daszak was appointed leader of the Lancet COVID Commission Task Force on the origins of SarsCov2 in November, 2020 by Jeffrey Sachs. He was also appointed to the WHO’s equivalent investigation team which arrived in China in January, 2021.
Unsurprisingly, Daszak concluded the virus could not have leaked from the lab, drawing the same foregone conclusion he had already reached in February, 2020. The only possible purpose for selecting Daszak as a team leader to investigate the origins of SarsCov2 would be to select someone who was 100% guaranteed to rule out the lab leak origin, regardless of what the evidence showed. Since February, the WHO has been busy pronouncing its assertions that the lab leak origin is so improbable, it’s not even worth investigating.
The media uncritically accepted Daszak’s assertion that the lab leak origin was impossible in February 2020, and quickly assigned taboo status to the lab leak origin hypothesis. For months, it was not possible to discuss this hypothesis in public — and often not even in private — so powerful was the force of that taboo. Only independent media sources, laboring under the threat and often the reality of deplatforming, dared to explore what was always the most likely and obvious of explanations. There is hardly a clearer case for the utility of Ockham’s Razor than the lab leak origin of SarsCov2. This video interview provides an in-depth rundown of the evidentiary case for the conclusion that the virus was almost certainly created in a lab.
Only now, in April 2021, has the mainstream media finally seemed to have lifted the taboo. Former CDC Robert Redfield has finally gone public with his supposition that SarsCov2 escaped from the Wuhan lab. Furthermore, in response to the WHO’s obvious attempts at a cover-up, this open letter has been drafted by an international group of scientists calling for an honest investigation into the lab leak origin of SarsCov2. Some of the authors were later interviewed by 60 Minutes.
Why the sudden change in narrative after one solid year of taboo? One possible answer is that Western governments wanted to impose lockdowns in 2020, and praise for China and imitation of their response was a key component in justifying those lockdowns. As such, it did not serve their purposes to promote a Chinese lab escape narrative at the time. Now the situation has changed. Lockdowns and authoritarian rule have been firmly established and entrenched all over the Western world; it’s now safe to squabble with China again. Ratcheting up a US vs. China dynamic could be a useful way to distract the world into a false competition between the two superpowers — thus precluding unified opposition to the superclass technocrats currently imposing their tech-powered authoritarian agenda on the entire world, independent of national or state allegiance.
If so, why did I highlight the importance of the lab leak taboo in this article? What difference does it make whether the virus originated naturally or from a lab? When considering how weak the virus turned out to be (nothing close to approaching the superbug we were taught to be terrified of) one might dismiss its origins as irrelevant. My response is that truth is important wherever it leads. The case study of this taboo, which is now being lifted after one year of firm imposition — highlights the power of the media to impose and lift taboos and control public thought, regardless of the truth of the matter made subject to taboo. Secondly, any time the powerful seek to cover up a truth, it signals the ability of that truth to threaten some vital interest held by the powerful — and is therefore of vital interest to the people that the truth be uncovered.
Thirdly, even though the SarsCov2 virus turned out not to be very threatening, things might have turned out very differently. It might have been the case that a virus capable of killing hundreds of millions had been released. This is a warning to the people of the world about the inherent danger of this kind of genetic research. It is a warning in regards to the reckless behavior of our governments and militaries in funding such research. It is a warning in regards to the reckless behavior of our pharmaceutical technocratic class in creating such viruses.
Finally, it is a warning not to place power in the hands of these reckless, negligent, and deceptive governments and their partners in the pharmaceutical industrial complex. It is an even greater taboo to consider whether the virus could have been released deliberately. One blanches at the possibility of it — but how can we know for sure if we cannot even ask the question? After a year of tyrannical authoritarian rule by these governments — with a new push to try and force experimental vaccines on the entire world — it is high time we started insisting on the truth. Following the truth of the matter leads to the realization that figures like Fauci and Daszak, and institutions like DAPRA are behind the funding of both the creation of SarsCov2 and the new mRNA vaccines. Even if SarsCov2 was not created through gain-of-function processes and indeed arose directly from bats, the virus would still not have existed in the lab had that research not been occurring. What’s more, the creation of SarsCov2 was a collaborative project between China and the US. If anything, these governments are not truly at odds with each other. They may merely be rival powers with a common enemy: the people they rule over.
~
The “V” Word and Narrative Warfare
Having broached the subject of vaccines, the time has come to turn the taboo meter up another notch and explore a subject guarded against with almost religious devotion. Vaccines are a unique type of pharmaceutical product due to their peculiar legal status. Alone among medicines, vaccines can be forced on patients against their will by making their usage a condition of employment, travel, or access to education. Meanwhile, those who manufacture vaccines are completely shielded from product liability by law: Vaccine injury claims cannot be filed against the pharmaceutical company who produced the vaccine, as established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Claims must instead be filed against the US Federal Government in a no-fault claims court proceeding, with compensation for injuries paid by the United States taxpayers, not by the pharmaceutical companies.
Needless to say, the patenting and manufacture of vaccines presents a remarkable business opportunity. In what other industry can you force consumers to buy your product if they wish to retain access to basic human rights — while enjoying total absolution from financial liability if the consumers forced to take your product are harmed by it?
For now, I shall set aside the debate regarding safety concerns in traditional vaccines, and the more than $4 billion paid in compensation for proven vaccine injury by the US Government since 1986. Suffice to say, a growing movement has vocally challenged the vaccine industry in recent years, insisting on improved safety trials, public debate, and a moratorium on vaccine mandates. In response, the pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines have launched something of a narrative warfare against vaccine skeptics, dubbing them “anti-vaxxers.”
Pharmaceutical companies spend over $5 billion per year on advertising with the major media companies, and share overlapping board membership with them as well. They also contribute more money to political campaigns than any other industry. Wielding this influence, they seeded a narrative in the populace, and questioning the safety or efficacy of any vaccine swiftly became taboo. Media outlets vilified the new “anti-vaxxers,” and conscientious citizens were encouraged to disparage and shun them. America’s current plague of cancel culture, more recently adopted by left-wing identity politics movements, seems to have originated in the pharmaceutical industry’s campaign against vaccine skeptics.
As of 2021, a number of SarsCov2 vaccines have been released under an exceptional use authorization, meaning these products have not completed safety trials or been approved by the FDA. The previous narrative groundwork regarding traditional vaccines has been applied to these new products. Even though they are created from experimental technology and have not passed safety trials, and despite numerous reports of death and injury resulting from their use in the months since their debut — it remains taboo to question the safety or efficacy of these new products, just as it is with traditional vaccines. Moderna and Pfizer both announced that their products are over 90% effective, but there are significant questions to be answered about their data, its framing, participants excluded from the study, and other issues related to the reliability of these results. This article by Peter Doshi compiles many of the concerns related to the Moderna and Pfizer products, with a host of links for further research. In particular, Moderna and Pfizer are releasing their own interpretations of internally conducted studies of their products, with some information pertinent to these results still unavailable. Independent trials and studies conducted by neutral parties have not been completed.
Many maintain it is not accurate to call these new products vaccines at all due to the brand new technology they utilize: a kind of gene therapy. Traditional vaccines work by introducing a small amount of the pathogen into the body — small enough that the body’s immune response effectively learns how to fight off the pathogen when later encountered naturally. The new vaccines, whether utilizing mRNA strands or adenovirus delivery systems, reprogram target cells in the patient’s body to construct proteins that resemble the “spike protein” portion of the SarsCov2 virus, which the body’s immune system will then learn to attack. Skeptics of the technology worry that this too closely resembles an induced auto-immune condition in which some cells in the body continually produce pathogens, and the body’s immune system mistakenly identifies other cells in the body as pathogens and attacks them. Specific concerns exist regarding the similarity of the spike protein to proteins found elsewhere in the body, including the reproductive system, which could lead to possible fertility risks.
The taboo against questioning the safety or efficacy of anything labeled a “vaccine” has been supplemented by heavy censorship on the big tech social media platforms where any perspective contrary to the mainstream media narrative is deemed “misinformation” and banned. Those who wish to publicly debate or even discuss this issue, so pertinent to all of our lives right now, are hesitant to even say the word “vaccine,” employing euphemisms like “V,” “Maxine,” or “the jab” for fear of being deplatformed. I recommend the article 18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a Covid Vaccine as an excellent summary of the primary issues to consider regarding these gene therapy shots — issues largely censored or ignored in mainstream media outlets.
Even live news events that challenge the narrative are suppressed and memory-holed. In the first weeks of the vaccine rollout, nurse Tiffany Dover fainted mid-interview on live TV just 17 minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. The media narrative quickly declared that the fainting had nothing to do with the vaccine, and that she was doing well. Dover then disappeared from public life and never reappeared; follow-up information regarding her health and safety were not forthcoming. Independent researchers have since collected and presented evidence that she in fact, died soon after the fainting episode.
Laypeople are not alone in holding questions and concerns about these new pharmaceutical products. They are joined by numerous scientists, researchers, and medical professionals who have had the courage to speak out. An open letter has been written and signed by a group of preeminent doctors and professors from around the world, addressed to the European Medicines Agency on February 28, 2021. This letter warns of the high level of side effects from these vaccines, and possibilities of long-term health and immunity consequences that are yet unknown. It judges the approval of these vaccines to be premature and reckless, constituting human experimentation in violation of the Nuremberg Code. In an additional statement, they also noted that side effects have been three times more common in those who have already been infected with the virus, and recommend an enumeration and evaluation of all deaths occurring within 28 days of vaccination.
Another open letter has been issued by Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, PhD, a world renowned vaccine expert who is a strong proponent of traditional vaccines (counting global pro-vaccine institutions such as GAVI and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation among his former employers). In summary, he writes with great concern that mass vaccination with these SarsCov2 gene therapy vaccines may create an immunological catastrophe, both for individuals and the public at large, even if they work precisely as intended. Summarized, the reason for this is that these gene therapy vaccines induce the body to produce specific antibodies rather than general antibodies, and these specific antibodies may be numerous enough to edge out the general antibodies. This is called suppression of innate immunity. What this means is that the vaccine simultaneously promotes increased mutations in the virus itself, generating new strains at a faster rate, while impairing the body’s ability to respond to new versions of the virus — being stuck with synthetically rigid antibodies rather than the organically flexible antibodies produced by natural infection. Watch the full interview here, or view the interview with commentary for additional context.
Since the SarsCov2 gene therapy vaccines do not expose the body’s immune system to the SarsCov2 virus, but only a synthetic facsimile of part of the virus, it stands to reason that they are unlikely to provide the kind of robust immunity provided by natural infection. In fact, neither the vaccine makers nor the public health authorities claim that these vaccines provide immunity at all. Nor do they claim that the vaccines prevent transmission. This highlights another reason why the appellation “vaccine” can be misleading. Millions of laypeople assume that if something is called a vaccine, it provides immunity and prevents transmission — and so falsely believe the SarsCov2 gene therapy vaccines to do the same.
All of this is part and parcel of the narrative warfare. We have absolutely no evidence that these products prevent, or even inhibit transmission of the virus. But because we haven’t proven 100% that they don’t inhibit transmission, Anthony Fauci advises us to assume that they probably do inhibit transmission — when he wants us to take the vaccine. Then, when he wants us to keep wearing masks and social distancing (after taking the vaccine), he tells us to assume the vaccines don’t inhibit transmission. Likewise, if someone experiences injury after receiving a vaccine, we cannot assume the vaccine harmed them unless we have 100% proof of this. And if someone dies after receiving a vaccine, we cannot conclude the vaccine killed them unless we have 100% proof of this, even if they died just minutes after receiving the vaccine. Documented reports of thousands of injuries and deaths are assumed to be in error.
I call this the 100% — 0% fallacy. In addition to taboo, it’s one of the most powerful tools of narrative warfare. It works like this: Once a fact has been stated to be true by the Narrative, we must automatically assume that it is true as long as there is a greater than 0% chance that it could be true. In contrast, to challenge the Narrative you must have 100% proof it is wrong, or you are deemed “debunked.” Facts that have not been certified as part of the Narrative must be assumed false as long as there is a greater than 0% chance that they could be false.
The Narrative is held to be true and unquestionable as long as it’s theoretically possible that it could be true. Here are some fun ways this can be deployed: If there is a greater than 0% possibility (no matter how tiny) that covid can be spread by asymptomatic carriers, we must treat 100% of people as though they are infectious, just to be safe. If there is a greater than 0% chance that a person could get covid a second time, then we must assume that 100% of people will not acquire immunity after having covid, just to be safe. If someone dies within 30 days of a covid diagnosis, we must assume 100% of the time that they died due to covid, just to be safe. If there’s a greater than 0% possibility that wearing masks might inhibit asymptomatic transmission, 100% of all people must be forced to wear them. If there’s a greater than 0% chance that lockdowns inhibit the spread of covid, we have no choice but to lock down, regardless of any and all consequences. Just to be safe.
If one only receives news from the mainstream media, it would be easy to believe that scientists and doctors have formed a general consensus that the SarsCov2 vaccines do not cause injury or death to anyone, that naturally acquired immunity to the virus is an impossibility, but that immunity can be acquired by the vaccines. Loyalty to this set of beliefs is confirmed by uttering the phrase “Follow the Science.” Those who violate the taboo by challenging this narrative must be silenced and stopped before their delusional beliefs infect the minds of others, and tens of thousands of people die as a result. Since there is absolutely no risk from taking these vaccines, no one should have a right to refuse them. Therefore, vaccine passports and mandates are completely acceptable. People need to be forced into doing the right thing.
If, on the other hand, the simplified narrative recounted above is incorrect, then incalculable harm could be caused by suppressing free and open discourse regarding these vaccines and the potential pros and cons of them. Thousands of people who would be at no particular risk of harm from covid, or who already have natural immunity to it, could die or be seriously injured by needlessly taking these products. The rights of millions could be violated by forcing vaccines on them against their will, irreparably damaging our democratic traditions and society. And if Geert Vanden Bossche is correct in his fears, mass vaccination could result in weakened immune systems in millions more, resulting in a created pandemic of compromised immunity in the vaccinated, with large numbers of injury and death.
Both of these narratives warn of significant harm if they are not heeded. How then, to determine the truth amid so much disagreement? By welcoming and scrutinizing all ideas, challenges, and evidence — returning to the principles of the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, Democracy, and Freedom of Speech and of the Press. We leave assignment of taboo to religion, spirituality, and private conscience, which are also protected as fundamental human rights. We absolutely reject the concept of vaccine passports, coercions or mandates, and return to the principle of informed consent as the basis for medical intervention. We respect the rights of every person to their own body, to be the final authority on its boundaries, just as we do in regards to rape, sexual assault, and abortion — realizing that to violate a person’s sovereignty over their own body is to harm them deeply.
We uphold the sacred medical principle of the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.” The oath does not say, “First, the ends justify the means.” It does not say, “First, conduct a utilitarian analysis of whether the harm you intend on doing will be worth it, according to your prediction of future harms. Then, if your calculation justifies it, go ahead and do that harm.” And it does not say, “First obey whoever has power, and do so without question. If that authority tells you to do harm, then do it.”
In the rejection of imposed state/media taboos, an intertwined network of undue influence is revealed — a tangle of corporate conglomerates, government agencies, research institutions, NGOs, foundations, and consolidated media institutions. This enmeshment has created a web of corruption with the power to skew perceptions of reality along self-serving lines. Taboo and censorship regimes erase the suppressed truths that threaten this power structure. Without free speech, free assembly, and a free and uncontrolled press, we cannot be a free people or choose our future in alignment with scientifically-informed inquiry. We need a culture that values diversity of thought — that rejects the use of taboo to imprison the mind and turn people against each other. We need once again to value the search for truth, not obedience to entrenched power structures.
~
An Election Like Many Others — And Yet Not
Oddly enough, as touchy as the issues of Fauci, Gates, the origins of SarsCov2, and even the vaccines are — it seems an even greater taboo has been set. One mustn’t question of the integrity and validity of the 2020 election results under any circumstances.
To the seasoned media observer, the 2020 election became suspect as soon as the media declared Biden the winner, speaking with one voice. This occurred despite the existence of numerous challenges and concerns that had not yet been publicly aired and debated, nor filed in court, nor yet dismissed for lack of standing without a hearing by said courts. Trump had not conceded the election. In an unprecedented move, the media simply ushered their preferred reality into being by selecting the president themselves! This can only be called a media coup. Even more staggering than the media’s actions was the response of the electorate. Most people just seemed to accept the fact that the media had declared a winner in a disputed election without any sense that something was strange about that.
To backtrack a little bit, it was the US media coverage of the stolen 2000 election that first opened my eyes to the controlled media matrix (though it took 2020 to show me how deep it went). I was studying abroad in England at the time, and (in those days) the British press had no particular investment in picking sides or lining up behind a particular narrative regarding US political news. I received pretty straight coverage of the whole theft, and it was unambiguous and obvious.
My world was reeling. Up to that point, I had been a proud believer in the American system and the beauty and wisdom of American democracy. I didn’t vote for either Bush or Gore that year, but it was clear to me Gore had won. The election was stolen before the eyes of the world over the course of the next month. When I returned to the US in mid-December, the Supreme Court had already appointed Bush president on a 5–4 partisan vote, achieved by literally ordering votes to stop being counted in Florida and by certification of the existing incomplete vote total. As I walked around the city streets of the US in the days that followed, I asked myself, “Where are the pitchforks? Where are the torches? Why aren’t people alarmed? Don’t they realize the democracy has just been overthrown?”
But they didn’t realize. It took me a few months to figure it out, but I came to understand that the American people had been supplied with entirely different information than I had received in the UK. They had been subject to a polished, coordinated, and expert media narrative that subtly downplayed or ignored the evidence of coordinated fraud, and instead emphasized confusion over “hanging chads” with those ridiculous propaganda photos of the nebbish election official staring bug-eyed with head tilted at ballots, absolutely bewildered by the problem of determining for whom the vote had been cast.
The narrative became: “The election was basically a tie. I guess we’ll never be able to figure out the truth of it all, but someone has to win, so why shouldn’t it be Bush? If Gore objects to that, he’s a SORE LOSERMAN.”
Ah, how I long for the innocent days when media propaganda campaigns were achievable by appealing to the numb complacency of Americans in their relative prosperity and comfort. Now that life has become a dystopian hellscape, it’s only possible to appeal to Americans’ fear, distrust, paranoia, and unthinking obedience to authority if propaganda is to be effective.
After Bush was installed in the White House, Congress passed the “Help America Vote” Act, the primary function of which was to replace punch card paper ballot voting machines (and those oh-so-confusing chads!) with electronic computerized voting machines, which were obviously better and more secure, because, technology.
I tried to warn people at the time: “They JUST stole the election, and now their supposed SOLUTION for election integrity is to replace paper ballots with touch-screen machines that internally calculate vote totals behind a black box of internal circuitry — the programs and workings of which are guarded, secret, and protected by proprietary patents and non-disclosure agreements?”
We were apparently meant to rest easy knowing that good people of integrity (although we have absolutely no idea who those people are or who they answer to) would be taking appropriate measures to safeguard us against the misuse of unexaminable technology to which we have entrusted our votes. After all, why would extremely rich and powerful people have any interest in who ends up taking power of the US government?
Two years later, in 2004, the touchscreen Diebold voting machines produced a Bush victory in Ohio, carrying the presidency along with it. Those of us who pointed out the numerous data points indicating deliberate vote-changing in these machines, including Diebold’s open and blatant Republican Party ties, were simply ignored.
None of this is new or shocking in light of historical context. US elections have been corrupted in various ways for quite some time. Conventional narratives hold that JFK’s razor-thin victory over Nixon in 1960 was a result of Mayor Daley’s political machine rigging the vote in Chicago, delivering Illinois to JFK, and LBJ’s political machine in Texas rigging the votes in that state. JFK would have lost the election if not for those two states. On the other hand, less conventional scrutiny casts doubt on Nixon’s victory in his home state of California, where Nixon’s own political machine may have delivered rigged votes to tip the balance toward Nixon in that state. Perhaps vote-rigging on both sides explain why Nixon did not challenge the election results. If Kennedy had won in California while Nixon prevailed in Illinois and Texas, Kennedy would still have been the overall winner.
The point is, questionable vote counts have been a factor in US Presidential elections for a long time. Other methods besides vote-rigging have also been employed to sabatoge the Presidential election process. It could be well-argued that Nixon committed treason in 1968 by sabotaging the Paris Peace Accords that were on the cusp of ending the Vietnam War, influencing the vote in his favor to eke out a narrow victory. It could also be argued that GHW Bush, as part of the Reagan campaign, coordinated another treasonous agreement in 1980, this time with Iran, to delay Iran’s release of their US embassy hostages so as to undermine President Carter’s reelection chances, in exchange for the promise of lucrative arms deals once Reagan came into power. This is to say nothing about collusion between the corporate press and social media giants in 2020 to supress the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop leaks. The information contained within impugned the integrity of Joe Biden and may have swayed the election in favor of Trump regardless of whether or not vote-rigging occurred in the swing states that handed victory to Biden.
It is also commonly acknowledged that US intelligence agencies, with corporate collusion, have been coordinating stolen elections, assassinations, and coups all over the world since the 1940s. There are various realpolitik benefits to be gained in successfully overthrowing governments in this way, including important business opportunities. It is a matter of curiosity that alone of all governments, we are meant to consider it impossible for these black ops to be directed at the most consequential government in the world in terms of realpolitik: the United States.
Consideration of that possibility has been a long-standing taboo promulgated by mainstream media and the US government. I already discussed the 1934 coup attempt earlier in the article. To cite another case in point, the majority of Americans have never believed the official story about the 1963 assassination of US President John F Kennedy that comes from the media and the government. Even a casual glimpse at this event in history shows that Kennedy was shot from both in front and behind, that an official government cover-up attempted to pin the whole thing on one man, acting alone, and that man, who vociferously proclaimed his innocence, was then silenced by murder while in police custody a few days later. Five years later, the assassination of RFK ended his probable election as president in 1968. An official coverup followed this assassination as well.
Many of us recognize the complicity of the US government and the corporate press in covering up for the interested powers who orchestrated these two assassinations. In the case of the JFK assassination, we are actually in the majority, and have been since the mid-60s—but the power of taboo leads us to silence ourselves. We feel afraid to mention the clear fact that Kennedy was assassinated in what was almost certainly a coup. Because of the power of government and media to set the narrative and the corresponding taboo, the majority of the people stay largely silent about the official lie. Truth is the taboo.
In 2000 and 2004, Republicans were incredulous that anything untoward or fraudulent occurred in the conduct and results of those elections. Democrats, timid and compliant (In those days… They have now become belligerent and compliant) agreed not to question the results either. There seems to have been a gentleman’s agreement for a very long time that election integrity would never be questioned, no matter how transparent the fraud. Nixon abode by this agreement, as did Humphrey, Carter, Gore, and Kerry. If an election were stolen out from under you, one was to accept that arrangements had been made by the true rulers of the country to make it so. If you wanted to win an election, you had to win over those guys. And if you failed to win over the true brokers of US election results, you would have no one to blame but yourself. The true election to be won always takes place behind closed doors—weeks, months, or years before the public cast their ballots.
The politician’s creed has been to keep one’s head down, accept the lie, respect the taboo, and start brown-nosing the folks who really run the country to see what kind of position they will be willing to offer you. Above all else, the common people need to be convinced that democracy is alive and well so the true process of power allocation can continue undisturbed. Of course, Donald Trump would never agree to any of that. He has no interest in gentleman’s agreements because he’s not a gentleman, and has never pretended to be.
In 2020, the possibility of election fraud or rigging was declared taboo prior to any investigation into these claims. If you were watching mainstream media, you probably didn’t see the eyewitness testimony by election workers in front of state legislatures regarding fraudulent ballots and counting processes in 2020. You were probably never presented with the evidence regarding how electronic voting machines could be hacked via thumb drive or internet connection and programmed with an algorithm to reassign votes. You probably never heard the evidence regarding the capability to do the same with the machines that counted paper ballots, converting paper votes into digital votes while the original paper was destroyed (of which we saw a preview at the 2020 Democratic caucus in Iowa). You probably didn’t hear much about voter rolls full of deceased people, or stacks of mail-in ballots coming in 100% for Joe Biden, often with no votes cast for any other office.
To the extent that you did hear of these things, you were probably assured that these allegations were “baseless” or had been “debunked,” without being shown evidence of the debunking. You were probably assured that although the very same Dominion (previously known as Diebold) voting machine technology had been used to rig elections in other countries such as Venezuela, it would be ridiculous to imagine that this could happen in the US. Perhaps you were told that while there might be truth to some of the vote-rigging allegations, there certainly couldn’t have been enough of it to change the winner from Trump to Biden. After all, the media would have told us if that were the case.
In contesting the 2020 election results, Trump shined a spotlight on the security risk of computerized voting machines for the first time since they were introduced 18 years prior. The taboo, and the gentleman’s agreement, had been broken by Trump — and by millions of voters who no longer trusted the media to tell the truth. This is why we saw such a hysterical authoritarian response to the Capitol riot on January 6. When a taboo is shattered, the government and media will act swiftly to severely punish those who dared to ignore it.
In a coordinated effort between big tech, the mainstream media, and Democrats in Congress, they deplatformed the sitting president and censored his press appearances; slapped together a makeshift impeachment farce, threatening to arrest or blacklist any and all unrepentant Trump supporters; issued new waves of draconian censorship and deplatforming; employed racketeering tactics to completely destroy the communications platform his supporters were connecting with each other on; characterized the riot as an armed insurrection and domestic terrorism; flooded Washington DC with an occupying army that has still not left (3 months later as of this writing); surrounded the Capitol building with permanent razor-wire fencing; and inaugurated Biden in a ceremony closed to the public, surrounded by a ring of 25,000 soldiers.
If I didn’t know better, I would see all of that as evidence of a successful coup. But that idea is, of course, taboo. The narrative we are instructed to believe is that the real coup attempt happened when about 300 rowdy, rag-tag protestors ran around aimlessly in the US Capitol building. Independent journalist Glen Greenwald does an excellent job of dispelling this propaganda in the following two articles: The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot — and As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever. In the articles, he also warns us about the increased danger of authoritarian rule posed by the seizure of new governmental powers and fear-mongering regarding an illusory threat of an armed insurrection of domestic terrorists.
It is clear election theft is an extremely sensitive third rail, guarded with hyperbolic ferocity by the media, military figures, big tech, and ascendant politicians. Tellingly, their solution to the problem is not a public inquiry of transparent fact-finding subject to media scrutiny. Their solution is to ban all mention and debate regarding the possibility the vote could have been stolen, to suppress any evidence of what happened from public view, and to intimidate, blacklist, and otherwise persecute those who publicly voice such questions. This approach does little to engender trust in their integrity. One would think if the facts were on their side, such censorship and oppression would not be necessary.
I did not vote for either Biden or Trump in 2020. I’m not saying that makes me unbiased, I’m just saying it might help with my ability to see this from the outside, just as it did in 2000. It’s not about one party benefiting from election fraud and the other being harmed, it’s about the fraud, when exercised, swinging the vote in the direction of the national security state and their favored candidate.
I don’t know what the actual vote totals would have been in this election without any fraud. It seems clear to me that some number of votes were shifted from Trump to Biden, but I don’t know how many, or if it was enough to change the result. The computerized voting machines leave no possible trail that can be examined as evidence. It is unconscionable, in my opinion, that such machines are permitted in US elections, or elections anywhere. Yes, paper ballots can also be used to steal elections, but the paper trail is much harder to cover up if subjected to scrutiny.
Many have argued that our democratic process has already been corrupted enough to reduce our involvement in democracy to a choice between two options representing entrenched power, with true leaders of the people screened and blocked from ever reaching such a place. Because the systems produce such a corrupted choice for us, it doesn’t really matter if the votes are stolen.
I’d like to push back on this sentiment. The truth is, if our votes are accurately counted, we have the power as people to take back governance of this country any time we want. It’s only our complicity, our submissiveness, our susceptibility to propaganda, and our tribal gullibility that make it possible for the two-party system to prevail.
But if our votes are not truly counted, or if they are systematically modified by algorithm, or by drag-and-drop, to produce the desired results for the technocracy, then we have a very different problem with our system of governance, and it’s a problem we cannot solve without getting the vote back.
I don’t care to insist that I know what the true result of the 2020 election was. I don’t. What I do know, is that in our society, it is currently an excommunicable taboo to question the integrity of our elections and the computerized voting machines. If we do not change that — if we do not break the taboo and insist on full transparency in the voting process, especially the vote tabulation process, regardless of who the corporate media declares as winner, and if we do not get what we insist on — then we simply do not have a democracy anymore. Not just as a metaphor, and not just as a bitter, hyperbolic statement to decry the many ways the democratic features of our civil society have deteriorated and become corrupted
No, this is literal: If we are to be barred from examining our voting process, and banned from public life by pointing this out, we literally are in a dictatorship. If we are in a dictatorship, we ought to realize it. Our conversations can start turning to the question of “How do we carry on in a dictatorship? Do we keep our head down and try not to get squashed? Do we try to band together and resist? If so, how do we best protect ourselves? How do we identify each other safely so we can know who to trust? How do we build networks of connection to protect each other and exchange information without reprisal? Should we flee the country instead? If so, where to? And how? Almost the entire world is under the rule of covid dictatorship at the moment.
I realize to some reading this, the paragraph above this one will seem absurd. Acknowledging the current regime of dictatorial rule is another taboo. To many of us, this acknowledgment is not absurd at all. It has become our reality, containing the primary questions informing our lives and choices, as our formerly free society has been erased in the course of the past year. Yes, elections were stolen in the past, but in those days, our government was not attempting to take our human lives away from us: our relationships, our movements, our activities, our choice, the freedom of our bodies and breath, and the freedom of our ideas, minds, beliefs, and voices.
~
A Call to Reclaim Free and Open Inquiry on All Matters of Public Interest
The operating narrative in the newly formed police states we became subject to in 2020 is that freedom of speech, press, and conscience are luxuries we can no longer afford. There is a viral mind cancer infecting the world that makes the majority of human beings unthinking slaves to the belief in wild falsehoods, impervious to logic, reason, or fact. Since this mind disease transforms its victims into pod people incapable of independent thought, the only way to save the world is to forcibly prevent human minds from encountering the insidious mental virus material through censorship. Those whose minds have already been infected are to be socially quarantined. Cancellation, blacklisting, and deplatforming will prevent them from infecting those who remain pure and clean.
The imposition of taboo by government-media coordination marks the foundation of this censorship and social quarantine regime. In setting those thought taboos, they are performing an act that was once the province of religion. It is the power to make certain ideas unthinkable — certain words unspeakable — lest one become painted with the brush of the social leper and become untouchable.
I have explored four prominent taboos of the Age of Lockdowns in this article: besmirching Dr. Fauci or Bill Gates, suggesting that SarsCov2 may have originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, questioning the safety or efficacy of the covid gene therapy vaccines, and questioning the integrity of the electoral process. All four of these taboos are linked by their relationship to maintaining the unquestioned authority of the reigning power structure (recognition of which is yet another taboo). They are also linked to the primary taboo of questioning that power structure’s lockdown, masking, social distancing, and digital surveillance regime. This primary taboo is addressed in my article What to Make of Covid and the Lockdowns? The relationship between the lockdown regimes and the interests of the power structure are addressed in the companion article Why Are They Doing This? The vision of the world being constructed by this exercise of power, taboo, and narrative is explored in my article Understanding Technocracy.
The information and perspectives contained in those articles help to fully flesh out the picture of this current moment, but for now, I will conclude with a final statement about taboo. I hope this article has shown the relationship of our society’s current thought taboos to censorship, narrative, and the seizure of power. It is not my intention to convince the reader that the taboo narratives are true. But I do believe that an exploration of the taboo narratives provides conclusive evidence that their counterpart mainstream narratives are false. Regardless of what measure of truth rests in the various permutations of taboo facts, taboo interpretations, and taboo narratives, we can only restore democratic society by shining the light of day on all facts, all interpretations, and all narratives. Through the scientific process of considering all data, and all analysis — particularly the data and analysis that challenges our most cherished assumptions — we can restore trust, root out corruption with transparency, and restore scientifically grounded methods of knowing and learning, to the benefit and flourishing of humanity.
Please join me in answering this call.
~
Links and Research
I’ve compiled this list of websites, articles, and interviews as an easy reference guide for those who would like to learn more about the topics discussed in this article. I wish all of us to become our own authorities, and urge readers not to accept or dismiss my views uncritically, but to do your own research and draw your own conclusions. These links serve as a jumping-off point for independent researchers seeking alternative facts and perspectives to what is generally available in the mainstream media outlets.
~
Video Interviews, Documentaries, and Presentations
Fauci’s Checkered Past, Moderna’s Warp Speed Vaccine. In-depth interview of US patent expert, inventor, and businessman David Martin by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with detailed discussion of Fauci’s career and dealings guiding the pharmaceutical industry.
Fighting for Our Constitutional Rights. An interview with American Civil Rights activist Naomi Wolf by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. regarding abuse of emergency powers, the dangers of the prevailing censorship regime in violation of Constitutional Rights, and the network of conflicted interests involving Fauci, Gates, NIAID, and the pharmaceutical industry.
Who Is Bill Gates? The probing documentary by independent journalist James Corbett detailing the life and interests of Bill Gates and the history of his monopolistic business practices in both tech and public health.
The Great Reset: Is Bill Gates Too Powerful? A brief exposé by Russell Brand summarizing Gates’ technocratic financial empire, with ownership stakes in tech, oil, pharmaceuticals, farmland, GMO crops, seed patents, synthetic foods, and mainstream media outlets.
Coronavirus Origins Special Investigative Report. A fifteen-minute news report presented by Steve Hilton regarding the origins of covid-19, links to US-commissioned research, and conflicts of interest therein.
The Origin of the Species — and of our Viral Issue. Video exploration by Ivor Cummins and Gabor Erdosi detailing the evidence and reasoning to infer the likelihood of the lab origins of SarsCov2.
What Happened in Wuhan? Questions still linger on the origin of the coronavirus. 60 minutes report on evidence pointing to a lab origin of SarsCov2
Mass Vaccination in a Pandemic — Benefits versus Risks. Interview of Geert Vanden Bossche, Phd, DVM by Dr. Philip McMillan regarding the safety risks to individuals and the public at large regarding the newly released SarsCov2 gene-therapy vaccines.
A Coming Covid Catastrophe. A breakdown of the Vanden Bossche interview listed above with commentary from Del Bigtree regarding implications of the information shared.
~
Print Journalism
Naomi Wolf: We’ve Reached ‘Step Ten’ of the 10 Steps to Fascism. Article by Naomi Wolf detailing the ways the US Government, alongside other Western Democracies have used the declared covid pandemic to justify the suppression of civil rights, reaching the final step in a progression of steps that lead from democracy to fascism.
Journalism’s Gates keepers. Article by the Columbia Journalism Review exposing the numerous conflicts of interests that exist in mainstream media companies in their coverage of Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation due to extensive contributions distrubuted by that foundation directly to those media institutions.
Wealthy Businessmen and Bankers Plotted to Overthrow FDR. A Retired General Foiled It. Article summarizing the fascist coup attempt in America of 1934.
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with US Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research. Article detailing the flow of funding from Fauci’s NIAID through EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for gain of function research into coronaviruses found in bats.
Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines — we need more details and the raw data. Article detailing the numerous unanswered questions in the data released by Pfizer and Moderna regarding their claims of product efficacy.
18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a Covid Vaccine. An excellent summary of the primary issues to consider regarding the gene therapy covid shots — issues largely censored or ignored in mainstream media outlets.
Doctors & Scientists Write to European Medicines Agency Warning of COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers. Article summarizing safety concerns of prominent doctors and scientists regarding the gene-therapy SarsCov2 vaccines.
When it comes to vaccines, suddenly “from vs. with” matters again. Article discussing the hypocrisy of media and government standards of assigning risk to SarsCov2 itself, and contrasting methods of assigning risk to the gene-therapy vaccines meant to protect against that virus.
The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot. Article by Glen Greenwald exposing the false media narrative regarding the Capitol Riot in protest of Congressional certification of the electoral vote.
As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever. Follow-up article by Glen Greenwald on the same subject as listed above.
~
Open Letters and Exposé Documents
The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier. A lengthy report prepared by David Martin that details the actions of Dr. Anthony Fauci in relation to covid-19, conflicts of interest, gain-of-function research, and other activities. Martin focuses on the filing and ownership of patents as the basis of his investigation and compiles a list of criminal violations of federal law he holds Fauci is guilty of, alongside justification for these allegations.
The American Empire and Its Media. A series of charts and links mapping out media membership in the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission, along with membership of other prominent politicians and members of government, academics, corporate and unincoporated institutional entities of influence.
Call for a Full and Unrestricted International Forensic Investigation into the Origins of COVID-19. An open letter signed by an international group of scientists, researchers, and academics detailing the case of the likelihood of the lab leak origin of SarsCov2
Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Concerns. Letter calling for the discontinuation of the SarsCov2 gene therapy vaccines due to concerns regarding specific safety risks, signed by numerous prominent doctors, research scientists and academics.
Open Letter from Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, PhD, regarding critical safety concerns for individuals and regarding public health related to the promulgation of SarsCov2 gene-therapy vaccines.
National Vaccine Information Center VAERS Database. Online sortable database of reported vaccine injuries and deaths, able to sort for time frames, demographic information, and types of vaccines.
~
Companion Articles by Raelle Kaia
The following series of nine articles were written over the course of 2020–21 in response to the wave of authoritarian governance, thought, and belief that swept the world in that year. They represent an appeal to freedom of thought, speech, and conscience, and they advocate for a return to democratic, human, and spiritual values. These articles also offer research, critique, and insight regarding the nature of the crisis of this time and the possible intentions and implications of these events.
Part of the Problem. An encounter with the surreal in June, 2020. An invitation to open up to deeper questions at a pivotal moment in American and world history. June, 2020
Lockdown Evoked a Political and Conceptual Earthquake in my Life. A description of the unraveling process that occurred for me in the summer of 2020 as my prior alignments and sense of truth and trust were shattered by the advent of authoritarianism. September, 2020
The Sacred Left and Right.An analysis of the sacred and authoritarian forms of both left and right political orientations — with a call to support the sacred forms and resist the technocratic authoritarian forms. October, 2020
What to Make of Covid and the Lockdowns? My original article stating the case against lockdowns, masks, and social distancing regimes. An appeal for open discourse. December, 2020
Why Are They Doing This? An exploration of the possible reasons or motives for the continuing lockdown regimes in light of the evidence that they are neither necessary nor useful, and in light of the considerable harm they have caused and continue to cause. March, 2021
On the Mind-Altering Power of Taboo. A critique of censorship as antithetical to human flourishing accompanied by an examination of taboo and censored areas of inquiry, and of who is protected and harmed by their taboo status. April, 2021
Toward a New Religion.An exploration of the “New Normal” societal changes in values and belief that have accompanied the lockdown regimes, seen through the lens of religion and spirituality. April, 2021
Understanding Technocracy. An exploration of the nature of technocracy in further depth, examining it from psychological, ideological, and spiritual perspectives. April, 2021
Fact-Checking is the New Pravda. A dissection of the propaganda technique of fact-checking, which has become a ubiquitous phenomenon in the corporate press in recent years. Fact-checking is perhaps the most effective and important tactic available for shaping and controlling popular thought and belief. July, 2021
~
Incidental Links
The following links from the article lead to snippets of information and video clips that are more incidental to the links listed above. They are compiled here for convenience as well.
Fauci: People Should Not Be Walking Around Wearing Masks. When Fauci explained to us that masks do not offer any meaningful protection against transmission of respiratory viruses.
Facui: Asymptomatic Transmission Has Never Been the Driver of Outbreaks. Fauci explains that only symptomatic people drive contagious outbreaks in January 2020.
Fauci the highest paid out of 4M federal employees. MSN news article about Fauci’s wealth.
This Is What Mind Control Looks Like. This Is Operation Mockingbird. A viral YouTube video exposing the scripted content of TV news programs, repeated in lockstep in different news outlets across the country.
Former CDC director thinks coronavirus originated in China lab. Article in video interview clip of former CDC director Robert Redfield regarding SarsCov2 origins, stating he is free to speak his mind now that he is no longer leading the CDC.
Nurse Faints on Live TV After Receiving Covid Vaccine. The original news footage of Tiffany Dover fainting on live TV just minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine.
Fainting Nurse Tiffany Dover Died. May She Rest In Peace. Video journal investigating the fate of Tiffany Dover since receiving the Pfizer vaccine.
Majority in U.S. Still Believe JFK Killed in a Conspiracy. Analysis of Gallup poll results, sampled at regular intervals since 1963, regarding the consistent opinion of the American public that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by means of concerted conspiratorial action and planning.