Changing the rotten Status Quo would be surprisingly easy
It would take just one captured entity breaking free from their captors.
Question: How easy would it be to expose the most epic and harmful health scandals of our lifetimes?
My answer: It would be incredibly easy for any number of organizations to accomplish this goal.
In today’s thought exercise, I consider this question from the perspective of a couple of society’s key “truth-seeking” organizations.
The Mainstream Media
The undisputed leader of “pack journalism” is the The New York Times. If the army of investigative journalists at The Times took the lead and investigated the myriad Covid scandals, they’d probably expose 20 epic scandals in a month or two.
If the newspaper’s publisher and editors were so inclined, The Times does possess the resources, manpower and gravitas to expose the truth on, say, unsafe vaccines, iatrogenic deaths, the concealment and manipulation of key health statistics, etc.
As it turns out, most of the key research has already been done by alternative media skeptics; all of the key dots have pretty much been connected and mapped out. All The Times journalists would have to do is tie everything up into a nice, easy-to-grasp bow.
All they’d have to do is follow the evidence, ask authority figures a series of hard questions they’ve never been asked before and find a few smoking guns from emails, whistleblowers, etc.
Furthermore, if The New York Times took the lead on this project, this might give license to colleagues at other “news” organizations to launch simultaneous investigations. If even half of the country’s mainstream news organization suddenly started investigating the same scandals, the “bad guys” wouldn’t have a prayer.
The New York Times could expose all the Covid scandals by itself … if it wanted to. If other news organizations joined the fight, the time it would take to definitively expose these scandals would be dramatically reduced.
We know this isn’t going to happen, but - for what it’s worth - it could … easily.
Public and elected officials
It’s not just contrarian journalists who can launch hard-hitting investigations of officials who think they’re immune from such investigations. Politicians, prosecutors and law enforcement can do the same thing.
All that’s required is identifying the right forum - and the right to demand discovery, cross examination of witnesses and a few smart and skeptical officials asking the right questions.
If this happened, the house of lies would no doubt crumble in a matter of days.
This could be a Nuremberg-type tribunal or a Watergate-type hearing. It could take place via committees of Congress or via a grand jury in any county in the country.
We’ve already seen examples of a few semi-inquiries that easily proved malfeasance and unconstitutional behavior.
A “select committee” of Congress recently proved beyond a reasonable doubt that government agents were coercing social media companies to censor free speech that angered the government.
Similarly, another Select Committee in the House of Representatives has already pretty much proven that Fauci and his acolytes were telling massive fibs about the origins of the novel coronavirus. Again, this was a token truth-seeking exercise that had no problem proving that the “most admired” public health officials in the country were master prevaricators.
With Biden vs. Missouri, two state attorney generals have already proven a massive conspiracy to suppress and intimidate the speech of truth-speaking contrarian voices.
What if the A-team got really serious trying to prove even more shocking claims? We’d have the same results - with far more shocking revelations.
Probably half of the country’s elected representatives are lawyers. When these lawyers want to, they can actually ask tough questions and easily expose people who are obviously lying.
The reason our awful Status Quo is our awful Status Quo is that most of the “people’s representatives” don’t want to perform this role. However, for the record, they could do this - easily, with their hands tied behind their backs … if they wanted to.
Scientists and scientific organizations
Since Covid issues fall in the realm of science or “healthcare,” society would need more scientists to start practicing - and demanding - the practice of real science.
Real science would easily debunk faux and captured science just like real journalism would defeat atrocious journalism, which might as well be called what it is - stenography for the Powers that Be.
On one level, it would be quite easy for a large cohort of scientists to band together and start doing studies and experiments that eviscerated the rotten science that underpins all of the false narratives.
The bogus science contains so many falsehoods and provably false assertions that any real scientist could debunk the work and findings of their colleagues with a couple of studies and papers.
Alas, it’s hard to get real science funded when the agencies that pass out the scientific grants don’t want the truth exposed (and the most-prestigious scientific journals won’t publish important science).
Still, what if captured scientists experienced a crisis of conscience, performed a mea culpa and started performing real science? The motivation for doing so might be to preserve long-term trust in science. Or to use science to save lives not take lives.
These are radical notions - scenarios we know we’ll never happen - but if the scientists themselves organized and took back real science from the Government Science Complex, they’d probably go down in history. Even if they couldn’t get any grants, they could at least publish their essays and critiques on, say, Substack.
Plus, they all have tenure and so they aren’t going to go broke. They probably think this would be hard to do, but it would actually be easy.
I just wrote an article arguing that 99 percent of plaintiff trial lawyers are not going to represent any of the millions of victims of Covid policies.
However, if by some miracle just 20 percent of the nation’s plaintiff trial lawyers started suing the millions of people they could sue for enforcing illegal, unconstitutional or harmful Covid policies, the whole House of Cards would collapse - rapidly and … easily.
The cases would be that easy to prove … if the lawyers could get just some of these cases in front of a few fair-minded jurors.
It would just take a few eye-opening judgements to turn virtually no lawsuits into a flood of lawsuits.
And for those lawyers who don’t care about making even more money, they could tell their children and grandchildren they were bringing justice to forgotten victims. I know this is a corny notion, but - who knows? - it might resonate with some lawyers.
The best hope in our system of “checks and balances” probably comes from the Judicial Branch. That is, the Executive Branch, Congress and the “Fourth Estate” are now hopelessly captured.
But the criminal and civil court system might still hold out some hope - if we had more lawyers brave enough to file strong cases and if enough judges allowed these cases to be filed and didn’t sabotage the cases by dismissing most of them.
It would actually be easy for a few judges to simply let strong cases be tried. The judges could say, truthfully, “I didn’t make this ruling or hand down this verdict, a jury did.”
I didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday. I already know most judges will block good cases from going to a jury. My point is that judges could easily allow these cases to go to a jury … if they were so inclined.
Summing up …
It would be easy for, say, The New York Times to practice real investigative journalism that would expose the litany of Covid scandals and lies. If this newspaper did this, it’s quite possible several other news organizations with ample resources would start doing the same type of “watchdog” journalism.
Instead of journalists acting as a pack to ignore important investigations, at least a few would now do the opposite.
Politicians and prosecutors could easily join in, and would probably be much more inclined to do so if prestigious news organizations were now identifying shocking scandals.
It would not be hard for trial lawyer firms to accept cases from millions of injured plaintiffs. All they’d have to say is, “Yes, we’ll accept your case.”
More members of the scientific community could easily say, “We’re going to start practicing real science. We are now going to try to save science from the Fauci’s of the world and Big Pharma that have captured our profession.”
Judges could easily say, “Yes; this is a legitimate case. We’re going to leave that question up to a jury.”
What does ‘captured’ actually mean?
Like many contrarian writers, I use the word “captured” in just about every one of my essays. But what does captured really mean? It means someone is figuratively or symbolically imprisoned and does not have the freedom to live his life a certain way.
People who operate in captured organizations, somehow, have to break free. The reason they don’t try to break free is they think something terrible will happen to them if they try to do this.
This universally-shared perception shows the power of the forces that have created this state of confinement and fear.
But if one of these captured groups did break free from their captors, it might be surprisingly easy to save the world (and deliver justice to those who have imprisoned or harmed so many).
It would take a little courage, but it’s been said America is “the home of the brave.” At least one of these captured organizations needs to display a little courage and get …uncaptured.