Coronavirus: Thread

grarpamp grarpamp at
Sat Jul 24 13:50:22 PDT 2021

> After Fauci got exposed from FOIA etc...
> "Gain of Function"
> 'DRASTIC' stands for 'decentralised radical autonomous search team
> investigating Covid-19'. The organisation has set itself the mission
> of exploring the origins of SARS-CoV-2. "Thanks to 'DRASTIC', we now
> know that the WIV had an extensive collection of coronaviruses
> gathered over many years of foraging in the bat caves.

Prometheus Shrugged

Who Watches The Watchmen? - Fauci's "Noble Lie" Exposed

Charles Rixey via Prometheus Shrugged,

*Note — This article details current historical research into
COVID-19’s origins, as part of the D.R.A.S.T.I.C. team of scientists,
journalists & researchers. Recent news: D.R.A.S.T.I.C.’s research
forms a large portion of the basis for investigations begun by the US
Senate, House & National Institutes of Health. Recent appearances
and/or discussion on 60 Minutes, The Joe Rogan Exp., Fox News, JRE
[again], Bill Maher, & CNN.

All references for this and other articles are compiled under my
research project The Arc of Inquiry Bends Towards Enlightenment. The
files include my statistical analysis of the impact of censorship on
the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

More than 100K pages of FOIA documents referenced here have been
condensed into 173 pages of the most relevant selections in my
appendix Prometheus Shrugged. It was here, last February, that the
role of Dr. Fauci in ongoing academic censorship of COVID’s origin was
first exposed. A chronological narrative of the events described
throughout my research will included in a forthcoming volume of
DRASTIC’s set of published collections of evidence.
A medieval doodle of William of Ockham accompanying a litany of
scientists using his razor to shred evidence.

 The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote that truth goes
through 3 stages:

1st, it is ridiculed; 2nd, it is violently opposed; and 3rd, it is
accepted as being self-evident

Guess what’s next for us?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who Watches the Watchers?

Six months ago, I began my first article on scientific censorship
during COVID-19 by introducing Dr. Fauci as a surprise character that
had emerged unexpectedly while digging through what was then 83,000
FOIA emails, published by US Right-to-Know over the course of the last

[see files related to Ralph Baric, Linda Saif, Rita Colwell, Colorado
State/Rocky Mountain National Laboratory & the NCBI; other FOIA
releases from Judicial Watch, Buzzfeed & the Washington Post include
NIH funding of the WIV & Dr. Fauci's emails]

I've been trying for quite some time to get people to understand the
full scope of the Dr. Fauci ‘situation,’ but it’s clear that segments
of our national leadership are preventing an honest and open inquiry
into his actions because they fear the backlash/collateral damage that
will result from the tarnishing of their sacred cow. It's time
Americans were told the truth - that the grant money sent to the Wuhan
Institute of Virology [WIV] is merely a footnote in this narrative.
After all, Dr. Fauci controls nearly $4 billion of annual grant
funding for the NIAID, the institute within the NIH he has directed
since 1984; over 37 years, more than 50,000 research projects have
been supported with more than $50 billion [conservatively] of taxpayer
funds have been doled out to them.

It’s reasonable to hold him accountable for the results of his
organization’s efforts, but the direct funding received by the WIV for
Gain-of-Function (GOF) research represents only a tiny fraction of
Fauci’s involvement in enabling risky research - the 2017 repeal of
the GOF ban was decided without the consultation of the Trump
administration, even though news coverage during the pandemic blamed
him for the decision. Neither Fauci nor his boss Francis Collins [the
NIH director] bothered to clarify the record, which looks especially
disgusting in the wake of persistent rejections of Senator Rand Paul’s
assertions [with accompanying evidence] that the NIH ever financially
supported such research:


    Dr. Fauci’s true legacy

    The evidence of his involvement

    The questions Congress [and everyone else] should be asking Dr. Fauci

    The impact of his efforts

First, do no harm … to Fauci’s Legacy

It’s important to plainly state that I’m aware of the intense
politicization of virtually every aspect of the pandemic and the
pandemic response. Since many readers may not be aware, I’ll point out
that my specific motivation for building a COVID-19 website and
speaking to a broader audience about the various facets of the
pandemic was to offer unfiltered information to counter the disgusting
polarization I observed:

I felt obligated to re-iterate my stance, but the nature and
importance of the situation can’t be ignored any longer, because
Congress is now actively engaged in investigating the pandemic’s
origins, and we must confront the truth if we are to gain meaningful
insight that can help us prepare for future crises. There is no level
of partisanship that justifies ignoring a tragedy of this magnitude.

“Everything rises and falls on leadership” - John Maxwell

It’s hard to place a dollar value on the impact of Fauci’s leadership
decisions upon almost all aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is
why it’s not difficult to understand the willingness of some to avoid
a legitimate inquiry into the issue altogether. After all, he sits at
the nexus of -

A) the NIH’s role in supporting the research & development of mRNA
technology and new antiviral drugs like Remdesivir, and the resulting
conflicts of interest that the NIH continues to ignore

B) His role in pushing those NIH-sponsored inventions; specifically,
advocating for Remdesivir on the basis of weak evidence while
rejecting legitimate investigations into generic alternatives with no
less statistical support, as well as…

C) …His role in obfuscating concerning data and censoring public
debate over the risk/benefit evidence emerging about COVID-19
vaccines. Had Fauci been bluntly honest about the unknowns involving
the new technology throughout the pandemic, Americans would still
largely have assumed the risk - at least, assuming that antibody
dependent enhancement [ADE] was not a likely outcome. Oops.

D) His evolving stances on masking, lockdowns, school closures and
other non-pharmaceutical interventions [NPI], largely the result of
growing public awareness that those decisions have consistently been
based upon reducing the accountability of cowardly officials, not the
best interest of their constituents [Note: this is a conclusion from
my research focus last year, that I will return to once the origin
issue allows me to do so].

E) His refusal to address the blatant censorship of vaccine
side-effect data; it takes a disturbing level of cynicism to witness
the large-scale skepticism and uncertainty that has resulted from such
censorship and then vilify those willing to speak up - and blaming
them for any future vaccine breakout when one of the most likely
causes would be ADE. ADE with SARS-CoV-2 would most likely result from
the specific targeting of the MRNA vaccines, not vaccine hesitancy [in
the absence of a simultaneous global administration of the jabs -
which was never feasible under the geopolitical and temporal
constraints of the pandemic.

Each of those factors has contributed to the fading perception of
Fauci as ‘America’s Doctor, but each has also become a divisive litmus
test for which the evidence for and against is hotly debated. My
purpose here is not to offer judgment on those issues; rather, I want
to highlight the fact that Dr. Fauci’s legacy includes elements far
beyond the scope of my research - and the context of those debates is
directly relevant for the proper framing of the failures illuminated
here. The same hubris and gaslighting in defense of ‘Science’ has
plagued everything.

My disgust doesn't stem from casual reflection & an exaggeration of
weak assertions to fan partisan flames. It stems from my analysis of
100K pages of FOIA documents, 1,000+ research articles reviewed, and
my own published analysis of the the impact of Fauci's censorship,
which was the 1st of its kind:

My approach was external to science - from the perspective of an
historian seeking to understand the 'why' behind the further collapse
of trust in our institutions during the pandemic. My conclusions were
formed over six months of investigation, and focused on the
realization that one of the worst developments of the pandemic is the
evaporation of public trust in scientists [see Edifice Wrecks]. I’ve
never sought to inflame conspiracies or ignore evidence in support of
zoonosis, but I’ve personally entered into discussions with a
half-dozen of the scientists highlighted below, and none of them ever
addressed the emerging evidence that, under normal circumstances,
would’ve been part of the open debate that Fauci pretends already took

Every additional moment spent in denial and suppression just adds fuel
to the coming backlash, and thus far discussions have ignored what I
believe is the largest and most consequential elephant in the room:

F) Fauci quietly but directly ensured that scientific censorship was
implemented, in large measure, to prevent public awareness of the
extent of his role in GOF research and the controversies surrounding
it. The evidence proves that, at the start of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci
and many leading scientists moved to protect themselves - not us, who
weren’t yet aware of the potential calamity at our doorstep. Fauci LED
the efforts to obstruct research into COVID's origins, colluding with
the President's Science Advisor Kelvin Dreogemeier and Wellcome Trust
head Jeremy Farrar, to proactively undermine consideration of the
evidence that directly tied their global research initiatives to the
lab at the center of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To date, all of their efforts have been focused on preventing
disclosure of embarrassing connections - not preventing another novel
pathogen from sparking a global pandemic; to prevent future scrutiny,
not future tragedy.

Scientists, if you’re struggling to understand the distinction between
degrees of commitment to truth, I offer the example of Thích Quảng
Đức, pictured here protesting the corrupt S. Vietnam regime in a
prologue of the Vietnam War:

You see, the message for scientists who believe that a threat is
existential is that words gain true meaning when they are supported by
the actions & sacrifices of the speaker. What message are we supposed
to derive from the COVID-19 pandemic?

I’d recommend pausing for reflection - on the image above,
specifically - because what the world is beginning to see is that the
scientific establishment made a mockery of the trust it had been
given. The world’s leading experts in virology and public health
called attention to a threat by setting the world on fire, rather than
themselves - and then blaming us for being too simple to believe their
noble lie.


The baseline assumption of the public at large has been that Dr. Fauci
has earned the benefit of the doubt thanks to his five decades of
public service and consistency in defending establishment science -
the admiration of which has risen nearly to cult worship in recent
decades. The cognitive dissonance between appearance and reality have
created a situation where trust in ‘science’ has reached its sacred
peak at the exact moment when such trust is least deserved.

At the center of this incestuous arrogance is Dr. Anthony Fauci, the
recipient of unquestioned adulation by those in the political sphere
who have spent more than a century arguing that a Platonic
‘philosopher-king’ ideal must be forced upon intellectually vacuous
masses whom, left to their own devices, would inevitably

Scientists reached new heights in the ivory tower when they warned us
that man’s evil nature had left previous generations protected only by
the horrific death equation of Mutually Assured Destruction. Setting
aside the obvious complicity of scientists in the creation of nuclear
weapons, trusting science over many decades has simply led to a new
formulation of that Faustian bargain - Mutually Assured Corruption.

A Study in Scarlet

Before heading down the long and winding road, it’s important to
explain what zoonosis is and why Fauci’s denial of basic facts simply
kicks the accountability can down the road. Should we really be
surprised that Dr. Fauci is ‘confused’ by the definition of “Gain if
Function?” After all, not that long ago, he also ridiculed the idea
that the virus could’ve come from a lab before finally admitting that
it was a statistical possibility.

Zoonosis in the context of viral emergence doesn’t mean a virus
originally sprung from nature - all viruses do. It means that the jump
from animals to humans happened in the wild, as the result of a
fortuitous combination of mutations that allow a virus to survive the
switch. If human intervention artificially encouraged the process of
adaptation by experimentation, or simply by virtue of bringing a virus
to a lab and increasing the odds of such exposure, then the origin of
a viral pandemic is a lab.

What’s sickening about his tortured twisting of language is that Fauci
knows this better than almost anyone; thus his lies aren’t borne of
ignorance. What he’s done is use his scientific gravitas to pretend
that observers’ understanding of literal definitions is flawed because
we are too ignorant to appreciate the complexity of the issues. The
truth, however, is that our generation’s most prominent infectious
disease expert is gaslighting the citizens of the country he swore an
oath to protect [one could also use the term epistemic injustice].

We begin this story on 1/31/2020, on the eve of a 4-day stretch that
seemingly made true believers out of serious skeptics:

*[Note - I’ve published this article, but I’m still adding in pictures
and links]

The brief exchange above was a precursor to a conference call the next
day [2/1/20], organized by Jeremy Farrar & Dr. Fauci for the explicit
purpose of addressing the swirling rumors that had emerged following
the publication of an Indian pre-print that alleged the discovery of
inserts identical to sequence segments within the HIV genome

As far as sparking the intense reaction, the proof is in the pudding -
between the various collections of FOIA emails, the Indian paper and
Zero Hedge commentary are explicitly mentioned. The purpose of this
meeting was to address several aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that
pointed towards an artificial origin, by means of generating adaptive
changes through passaging and/or direct manipulation of the genome.
Immediately afterwards, Baric's 2015 paper was investigated and shared
amongst Fauci, his assistant Hugh Auchincloss, and others.

There's no reason to discuss the meeting’s purpose as a hypothetical -
the Indian paper proposed a possible method of tweaking, and the
Sirotkins' paper & Adrian Bond's arguments, as later magnified via
Zero Hedge, discussed the general outline of how the WIV would've
approached it, based on published experiments. The assembled experts
on the conference call knew this, and they also knew [by 2/1, anyway],
that Baric's chimaera and the methods within that paper needed to be
compared and considered to determine what to do next. I took it as
quite likely that the reference to 'backbone' directly stems from that

In retrospect, it makes sense for there to be questions about the
lovechild from that 2015 experiment, because the full sequence wasn’t
added to the article’s supplementary files until May 22, 2020- 3
months after that conference call. Given that the experiments
immediately triggered renewed debate about gain-of-function [GOF]
research, less than a year after the GOF ban began, pretending that
repeated corrections [in this case, relatively minor sequence
segments] are acceptable for the world’s leading coronavirologist
publishing a landmark paper in the world’s most prestigious journal is

Also completely obscured is the fact that at least one, and very
likely all, of the people on the conference call were aware of the
existence of the FCS, since Bill Gallaher had pointed it out on 1/29
and Robert Garry reiterated it [just a day before the conference
call]: [Analysis of Wuhan Coronavirus: Deja Vu - SARS-CoV-2
coronavirus / nCoV-2019 Evolutionary History - Virological]. There is
some confusion as to whether or not Garry actually made it onto the
call, given a comment just prior, but further emails show that Garry’s
input nonetheless was received by 2/2.

-2/2 was also the day that Marion Koopmans mentioned a “backbone” and
an “insert.”

Thus, just like Zheng-Li Shi, the Proximals [the five editors of The
Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2, plus their running mates in the
virological community] already knew about the existence of the FCS,
certainly by the end of the conference call. If not, then they lied
later about 'nothing emerging to change their mind about the
possibility of engineering.' Then, they said nothing for two weeks and
let Etienne Decroly & co. break the news. That's pretty shitty, since
the first notions of asymptomatic spread were also arising,

and the implications for many scientific disciplines, diplomatic
interactions and public health interventions are profound.

It’s even worse when you consider that 18 months later, they still
can’t explain it - the Proximals refuse to respond to the fact that
the FCS doesn’t exist within the sarbecovirus sub-genus that
SARS-CoV-2 falls under. This is a problem, because members of the
sub-genus are too distinct to recombine with the varieties of
SARS-like viruses from other branches that do contain the FCS.

In sum, having gone through now 100K pages of FOIA emails and all 600+
articles on my origin-only reference list, I'd be comfortable
testifying that:

1) The Proximals were gathered by Farrar & Fauci explicitly to compare
emerging arguments with what was known of Baric's work, the spectrum
of experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV]

2) Whatever specifics they covered that were pulled from the Indian
paper & Zero Hedge included elements from Baric's experiments with

3) They were nervous about the claims within the Indian paper [even if
not tied to HIV per se] even though it had already been pulled - it
struck a nerve

4) They were concerned that unrestrained interest would lead back to
them directly

5) They were concerned about transgenic mice [header for 1
discussion], the ZH article, the Indian retraction, a backbone, an
insert, Baric/Shi's SHC014 love child, and preventing further
inquiries into all of them.

6) They almost certainly also knew about the FCS on 2/1, but Garry
might never have made it to the conference call, per the emails, so
it's possible that [if no one saw the virological posting] this news
had to wait until 2/3, when the Proximals were summoned again.

7) Based on continuing conversations, the decision to censor might not
have been formally made until 2/3.

Public alarm? Lol, that's not the emotion they're afraid of.

Why? Because the part that everyone is mostly missing is the far more
important aspect of the Baric emails that got lost in their 83K pages.
The big news last fall was that Daszak et all conspired to shape the
narrative. 3 months later, I found and pointed out that the biggest
nugget had been missed. Sadly, It mostly stayed that way even after
the Fauci emails, despite my efforts.

The Proximals' 2/4 collusion efforts were spawned by the 2/3 OSTP
meeting, of which the stated purpose was to combat 'misinformation.'
There were obviously still concerns amongst the 2/4 crowd, but they
intentionally suppressed them for the OSTP letter. This wasn't their
own secret plan - Kelvin Droegemeier, the recipient of said letter,
was a speaker at the meeting on 2/3, so they weren't obfuscating for
him, or Fauci, or the NASEM presidents in whose name the letter was
being written.

That was a quick turnaround - this letter was emailed the morning of
2/3, and the meeting it called for took place that afternoon [I’ve
added in pictures of the speakers/participants]:

Note) NIAID Director Dr. Fauci coordinated this meeting with Kelvin
Droegemeier, the Presidential Science Advisor, and included WMD/PPP
expert Chris Hassell & the National Academies’ policy director
Alexander Pope.

The meeting’s purpose:

The outcome: This group slapped the table on what the narrative was
going to be - not what the science indicated. They hid their conflicts
of interest from the NSTC & the President; most still continue to
fight tooth and nail to suppress that information. This esteemed group
of virologists expended more effort and publications in advancing
their cover-up than leading the charge against the exploding pandemic,
until at least the summer of 2020.

The biggest picture-the 2/1 attendees included:

1) The world's largest public (Fauci) and private (Farrar) grant money
distributors, whom organized the call; Farrar is also an editor of the
New England Journal of Medicine

2) seemingly no GOF opponents

3) Nearly all of the major scientists with conflicts of interest (COI)
related to the WIV who later published zoonosis materials

4) Francis Ross but no other HHS, DHS, Ex. branch officials

5) Ron Fouchier, famous for his Spanish Flu concoction

The 2/3 meeting that decided to censor included:

1) The policy head of the NASEM academies that controlled fellowship
conferral & published Science

2) Heads of most of the most prestigious virology labs on the planet

3) The president's science advisor/OSTP head

4) The HHS science advisor/PPP authority

5) A mandate to control the narrative

Therefore, the signal was sent to all scientists that pursuing the lab
origins angle meant career death (no academy membership), no funding
(via Fauci or Ross or Farrar), no publication in the big 4 journals
during the historic pandemic (NEJM, Science, The Lancet & Nature [by
virtue of their publishing of the tone-setting pieces]), no executive
patronage for things like generic drugs, etc.

The disparity between peer-reviewed articles and everything else is stark:

If sorted chronologically, the impact from February to May of 2020 is
even clearer.

It's disgusting, and the extension of that censorship to all Americans
just ices the cake.

Edifice Wrecks

I’ve pondered the contents of the emails that were redacted before
release, but I can't imagine what could possibly be redacted that is
worth protecting. The West didn't make COVID-19, even if they taught
the Chinese how to do major aspects of it. But, these people did
decide to lie from the start, and then continued to do so after it
exploded from 40 deaths to 4 million. It means that they refuse to
call a spade a spade even now, and the prospect of China getting off
scot-free as a direct result is horrifying. The protection of Fauci is
a mid-term election decision only, and that means the goal is to drag
this out until the electoral damage can be mitigated. Anything that
clarifies this to the public negates being worthy of redaction.

The recent Congressional appearances by Fauci, however, have shown
that he is willing to drag this fight out forever in defense of his
legacy, and many politicians are sympathetic to his plight. Thus, it’s
clear that better questions are needed to build the proper level of
awareness amongst the public to the full implications of Fauci’s
concerted effort to prevent that same public discourse he claimed to
support in 2012. Below are the questions I would lead with, were I
appearing at his future hearings.

10 questions for Fauci:

1) Where did the buck stop? In 2014, who served as the final approval
authority for Baric's pending research, which ultimately allowed it to
be grandfathered under the impending GOF ban? Why did the experiment
not get forwarded to Chris Hassell's committee for review?

-why did no one notice that the experiment included the use of
humanized mice to increase human pathogenicity, which David Relman had
asked Ralph Baric about directly in November of 2014, and which Baric
denied any current research interest in that area?

-Coincidentally, it was also the research that Zheng-Li Shi was in
North Carolina working with Baric on, and then immediately returned to
the Wuhan Institute of Virology and continued in 2016?

2) Holding Dr. Fauci to his word - In 2012, Dr. Fauci called for an
open, public debate on the GOF issue, saying that scientists should
justify their research to the broader public any time the risks of
such research carried a non-negligible probability of an accident that
could affect them. Why then, in 2017, did the NIH rescind the GOF
pause - without first engaging the public or its constitutionally
elected president/representatives?

3) Secrecy - What did Peter Daszak tell Erik Stemmy & Alan Embry "off
the record" on 1/8/20? When did they pass on the contents of that
discussion to Dr. Fauci?

4) Redactions - When did you first learn of the existence of the furin
cleavage site within the genome of SARS-CoV-2 -What were the
insert/backbone referred to by Marion Koopmans? Was the insert the
FCS? Why were emails with the topic heading “humanized mice” redacted?

5) Silence - Why did Victor Dzau and the other two academy presidents
of NASEM ultimately remove the forceful pro-zoonotic statements
inserted by Daszak et al from the final version of their public letter
to the OSTP? What reservations justified that decision, and why did
they not speak out when censorship prevented the doubts of others from
being published?

6) Selective Inclusion - Why was Robert Kadlec, the HHS Assistant
Secretary for Preparedness & Response, not included in any
correspondence with Jeremy Farrar or your gathered audience of
world-renowned virologists? His deputy is the chair of the PPP
oversight panel and he is an expert on C-WMD & biological weapons. The
existence of any doubt in the possibility of a zoonotic source [doubts
which you harbored] should've made his inclusion mandatory.

-instead, you shaped the information provided to those outside the
scientific community.

7) Why were you and Francis Collins the only US officials involved in
the 2/1 conference call?

8) Subversion - Did you, Collins or Droegemeier alert Matt Pottinger,
Robert Redfield, President Trump or any member of the National
Security Council to the substance of the 2/1 conference call, or the
decision-making over the next 3 days that led to an un-announced
censorship of non-natural origin hypothesis for the origin of
SARS-CoV-2? Why not?

9) Diverging Narratives - Jeremy Farrar's experts decided on natural
origins of COVID-19 on 3/17? So, Fauci & the Pres. Sci. Adv. lied to
us/Trump in the OSTP letter on 2/7? And in 'Proximal,' on 2/16?
-written by your future dream team? What was the basis of the 2/4
decision to reject a lab-leak origin and produce “Proximal Origin” -
if no additional evidence was added to the 2/16 version prior to its
3/17 online appearance in Nature?

Both Fauci & Farrar explained the general make-up and purpose of a
‘group of experts:’

By this point [2/13] 10 days had passed since the ‘Proximals’ & Fauci
had held a second conclave, this time with the OSTP director, that was
followed directly by a flurry of peer-reviewed letter, articles and
‘collaboration’ [collusion] to smother the scientific community with
pro-zoonotic propaganda.

10) Prove it? Which evidence, specifically, led to the ‘Proximals’
reversal from 2/1 to 2/4? The arguments made in the following weeks
were pathetically unsubstantiated. If stronger evidence exists, why
wouldn’t it have been shown.

The answer, of course, is that the driving force behind the shift had
nothing to do with the quality or quantity of the supporting evidence.

Paved by Good Intentions

The only proper action for Dr. Fauci to take at this point is to
resign immediately, and apologizing for prioritizing the suppression
of embarrassing & extensive conflicts of interest, double standards
and political decisions masked as sound policy. Ideally, such a
statement would include a call for the retraction of Proximal Origin
of SARS-CoV-2, the most-read [and potentially most impactful]
scientific propaganda published in at least a generation. Each of its
5 authors intentionally framed the COVID origin debate around
‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ that they couldn’t prove, and a finality of
their conclusions that the known facts couldn’t justify.

These actions are independent of the ultimate answer to the origin
question, because the failures of leadership I’ve described are
ethically and morally indefensible, regardless of China’s guilt or
innocence in the sparking of the pandemic. Any remaining shreds of
credibility left in the public’s perception of scientists must be
salvaged by new leaders who are willing to do what needs to be done to
clean the Augean Stables.

Sufficient evidence already exists for Congress to do the right thing
moving forward. Given the enormity of the failures, and of the efforts
to hide, censor and destroy the credibility of anyone who spoke out
against lockdowns, vaccines, masks, generic drugs, mRNA efficacy vs.
risks, and the curtailment of numerous constitutional/human rights in
the last 18 months, it will take historic leadership to honestly
converse with a righteously indignant citizenry [in the US and
everywhere else]. We must accept that our current representatives have
proven manifestly unqualified to assume such leadership - in the last
6 months, censorship has been expanding, not receding.

The COVID-19 pandemic has manifestly proven that there is no lie so
'noble' that it overrides the rights and wisdom of a free and informed
public. That doesn't mean that the public will inherently do better.

It's just acknowledging the inescapable conclusion - that we can't
possibly do worse.

C. H. Rixey

Epilogue: Alan Moore’s prophetic vision, from a generation ago

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list