THIS is what happened …
… Or, more specifically, didn’t happen.
In a recent column, I compared the death figures from the Holocaust to death figures of the “democide” Covid Response and noted that mass homicide events could only happen because a cross-section of potentially influential “leaders” were completely on board with the the program that produced massive numbers of victims.
In other essays, I’ve pointed out examples of the “dog that didn’t bark” - that is, things that could and should have happened (and would “solve” the case) … but didn’t happen.
Today, I’m going to use artistic license to illustrate potentially narrative-changing conversations that could have happened in “leader” conference rooms, but didn’t.
College faculty meetings
Faculty members at America’s “bastions of higher learning” routinely meet in impressive, ivy-covered buildings where academics are charged with” advancing knowledge,” spear-heading important inquiries, “searching for the truth” and “serving the public” (thus justifying their immense tax-payer funding).
America has thousands of universities populated by hundreds of thousands of professors who spent years and decades earning their degrees and thinking deep thoughts about how they could serve their fellow man through their intellectual pursuits.
“Covid” became the Great Event of Our Times between January and March 2020, meaning that the world’s best and brightest have now had almost five years to prove their academic or scientific importance.
If a faculty meeting like this occurred at any college, the colleges’ public relations staffers didn’t send out a press release. (Note: The names are made up.)
***
Dean of College School X (Let’s call him John): “Esteemed colleagues, as you all know, a killer respiratory virus is said to be spreading throughout the world and the public is counting on us to tell them the truth about this virus and how society should respond to it.”
Science Professor Albert: “John, first, thank you for calling this very important faculty meeting. The first question that occurs to me is what if the virus isn’t deadly? What if Fauci and Birx are inflating the alleged risks?”
John: “Well, that’s what we need to find out.”
A professor named Tom asks a question: “Can’t we perform some inquiries - use all our collective expertise - and find out if the risk is perhaps wildly inflated?”
President of University: “Well, Tom, that’s why we’re here. The truth is the truth and all of us are committed to finding it and reporting it to the people. That’s why we became professors in the first place.”
In this imaginary scenario, the room might explode with exclamations of “Hear! Hear!” Without question, a “search for truth” is what motivated these professors to become professors.
Alas, In the Real Academic World, here’s what would have been said:
“… What the hell?”
“… Are you crazy, man?”
“… Do you know who pays our salaries and provides us all these great benefits?’
“… Aren’t we in these positions to support the policies of the Establishment and our benefactors?”
Chorus from those in the room:
“…. Right!”
“…. Guys, we’ve got a good deal going here. Why risk it?”
“… How are we going to keep getting grants and getting our papers published if we challenge views we’re not supposed to challenge?”
“… John, I must ask why you even called this meeting. Please tell me nobody is taking minutes.”
Of course, except for maybe Hillsdale College, no such meeting ever occurred and, if it did, the “public record” provides no examples of one faculty voice who spoke up and argued, “Damn the torpedos, let’s just do the jobs we are supposed to do.”
(Actually, a fair number of faculty members - like those who signed The Great Barrington Declaration - did try to speak out in their own free time - But those skeptical comments were never disseminated by the colleges’ PR departments.)
Hypothetically, it’s possible one or two faculty members might have spoken up at a faculty conclave and, perhaps, made the point that censoring contrarian views was anathema to the founding mission of institutions of higher learning.
Maybe somebody said: “This is BS. This isn’t why I busted my butt to become a college professor.”
I would have loved to been a fly on the wall and seen or heard the response such a comment elicited from this person’s academic peers.
I imagine this observation would have produced a prolonged period of awkward silence, followed, eventually, by someone offering a version of the accepted higher education mantra:
“We, of course, all support academic inquiry, but we can never tolerate disinformation or misinformation …”
“… Right … It might lead to vaccine hesitancy.”
“… Plus, the authorities are always right.”
The lonely contrarian might have tried one more time:
“And we’re the trusted authorities?”
“Well, yes, of course we are.”
*** (Readers are encouraged to forward this essay to a random sample of professors at their local institution of higher learning.) ***
The same conferences didn’t occur around the world …
Of course, it’s not just college professors who are supposed to “search for the truth” and impeach or debunk dangerous and society-wrecking false narratives.
For example - hypothetically - plaintiffs trial lawyers can file lawsuits, demand discovery and use cross-examination under oath to prove to a jury that certain individuals or large classes of victims have suffered irreparable harm or “torts.”
The trial lawyers also hold big conferences attended by large numbers of their members.
Of course, because of lockdowns, no conference could have been held in 2020 or 2021, but a virtual conference or a big conference could have been held once the government allowed more than 10 people to gather in the same place.
Another imaginary speech to rally community ‘leaders’ …
One can imagine the president of The American Trial Lawyers organization making the opening statement:
“Ladies and Gentlemen of the Trial Bar, we are living through one of the most shocking social upheavals in American history. Millions of our fellow citizens - all potential victims and clients - have been killed, injured, become sick, lost their jobs, been harassed and defrauded, had their legal rights violated in hundreds of ways … and we are the group that can represent these victims.
“This is the reason we all became lawyers - to ensure victims are compensated or receive justice for shocking travesties of justice!”
In the movies, such a speech would be met with cheers of agreement and every lawyer would take to the floor to make impassioned speeches about standing up for victims who have suffered egregious harms from corrupt and lying civil and criminal defendants.
In reality, such remarks were never made.
If they had been, the president of the Bar Association would have lost his job that weekend and would be fighting disbarment proceedings in a month.
More likely - if any plaintiff lawyer was honest - someone would have grabbed the microphone and shared the truth with his colleagues.
“Listen, we’re all smart or we wouldn’t have become millionaire trial lawyers. We all know what clients we can represent - what cases we can file - but, more importantly, what cases we can’t file. I don’t know how we know this; we just do.
“If we start representing real Covid victims, we’re all going to become just like that kook Robert Kennedy, Jr. We’ll lose our Country Club memberships, our beach homes and maybe even our mistresses.
“Our system of justice has ensured we have everything we could possible want. We’ll never run out of 18-wheeler accidents we can litigate. Asbestos cases, discrimination cases and toxic drinking water cases at military bases are still allowed. Do we want to flush that down the toilet by representing people who died from an injection or who lost their jobs and incomes because they acted like fools and didn’t get their shots?”
Chorus: “Hell no!”
It’s possible someone at the convention asked this truth-speaker, “What should we do, Mark?”
Mark: “Just listen to that little voice in your head. It will tell you who to represent and who to get out of your office as fast as you can.”
“Yes, always listen to the Little Voice!”
*** (Or you can share this article with one of those “fearless” trial lawyers you see everywhere on TV commercials and billboards). ***
Two more groups of influential ‘leaders’ …
Business leaders organize themselves into groups as well. The Chamber of Commerce or your state’s Business Council also holds fun junkets for members. These same groups must have reached the same conclusion.
President of the Business Council: “Hey, we all know which way the wind is blowing. Let’s don’t tip over the apple cart here.”
It’s possible some owner of a small hardware store or independent coffee shop might have piped up and asked, “Why do Home Depot, Starbucks and Wal-Mart get to stay open, but we have to close?”
If some science denier asked this question, the local and state newspapers didn’t report it. (Probably because reporters were too afraid to leave their homes or because they’d also attended similar virtual meetings in their now almost-vacant newsrooms).
Contrarian reporter: “Shouldn’t we report on this spike in all-cause deaths or these embalmers’ clots or the fact no college students are dying from Covid?”
If a rogue journalist ever asked such a question (he didn’t), he’s now trying to make a living on Substack.
It’s a crazy world …
It’s peculiar how every “truth-seeking” organization - and every “leader” in these organizations - all knew exactly what they could say or do … and what they couldn’t in Covid times.
We can safely conclude that democide is made possible by mass groupthink … which, in turn, is made possible by mass cowardliness.
The leaders who could and should have stopped crimes against humanity were too afraid to depart from the herd.
If the truth could be told, we’d all know the “Home of the Brave” is dubious propaganda too. By now, we should also know that all of society’s “leaders” are really followers.
(An addendum truth: The nation’s official truth-tellers get paid a salary by MSM news organizations. The nation’s truth-debunkers start Substack newsletters and ask generous citizens for voluntary donations.)
About a month ago, I had 311 paid subscribers. I now have 296. With a bad effort, I used to get 10 to 20 "free subscribers" with every new article. Now I average 0 to 2 new free subscribers and am going backwards in total subscribers as well.
I don't know if this means I'm doing something wrong ... or maybe I'm doing something right? It's clear to me that Substack has peaked as a platform where contrarian journalists can expand their reach.
But maybe this trend will reverse?
Someone needs to come up with a work-around for Substack.
I do appreciate everyone who is still supporting this newlsetter. My Ko-Fi donations are keeping me going so thanks to everyone who uses that link at the bottom of my stories to send some "tips" my way.
OUTTA THE BALL PARK BILL! 💥 You exemplify the attitudes of the “bureaucracy” quite well!
My bf has been doing a group lawsuit for two years. It’s absolutely insane, and of course the lawyers want more money every few months.
What was done to people is absolutely criminal. But, the lawyers aren’t much better.
People want vindication and what they lost, BACK (I retired three years early not by choice)!