This is the paradox of government public affairs: the professionals who work in this field must work to create a positive relationship between the government and taxpayers, yet without resorting to propagandizing.
This seeming dilemma may lead public affairs officers (PAOs) to fall prey to any number of traps. They may avoid mentioning bad news entirely unless forced to by the press. Similarly, they may avoid discussing controversial issues internally just in case the press obtains and distorts their comments.
Or, they may turn out crisis response documents that are so bland and meaningless that, although they have no value for real-world guidance, they also cannot be damaging if held up one day before the cameras on Capitol Hill. More subtly, they may conduct strategic planning verbally, to avoid leaving a “paper trail”, and in doing so leave important options unexplored.
In my own experience, I have found that public and private sector organisations alike address the paradox by being reluctant to proactively report anything but “good news”, and addressing bad news only when they feel they must. It is as if organisations believe that reporting good news, any good news, automatically creates a good impression of the organization, whereas even acknowledging bad news does the opposite. In fact, I remember one private sector client that fired my employer at the time (albeit temporarily) for merely finding out negative impressions of the company in internal interviews and then refusing to divulge the source of those impressions.
What can organisations do instead? In short, seize the paradox and eliminate it by focusing on transparency: Rather than running in fear from the truth, embrace it, even if it “hurts”. Transparency is itself a paradox that works to a public affairs advantage: by telling the truth, even when the truth looks bad, an organisation builds credibility with its stakeholders.
Here is an example. In January 2006, the New York Times reported that James Hansen, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) top climate scientist, was experiencing pressure to keep silent on his views about global warming (Revkin, 2006). In April 2006, the Washington Post reported that the pressure had spread to other agencies as well, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Interior Department (Eilperin, 2006). Clearly, these reports posed a public affairs crisis—“bad news”—for the agencies named.
NASA handled the crisis most transparently. The deputy assistant administrator for public affairs there told the Times that “we promote openness and we speak with the facts” (Acosta, cited in Revkin, 2006). He then allowed the newspaper to interview a PAO at the Goddard Institute, where Dr. Hansen works. The PAO then spoke freely, making a claim that contradicted the administrator’s assertion. The fact that the administrator specifically gave the PAO dispensation to speak without censorship gave credibility to the agency. Since that time, NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin has issued new rules allowing scientists to talk to the media freely, reports the Post, even to express “personal interpretations” (Eilperin, 2006).
What lesson can we learn from this? That transparency is good public service as well as good PR. To quote one NOAA scientist’s comment to the Post, “American taxpayers are paying the bill, and they have a right to know what we’re doing” (Thomas Delworth, cited in Eilperin, 2006, last para.). So allow the press to offer both sides of the story, for it enhances credibility to have a third party speak both points of view. When bad news happens, proactively describe what occurred to the public, rather than waiting for the press to bring the story to light. (The exception, of course, is classified or law-enforcement-sensitive information, that cannot be revealed without compromising the agency’s mission.) Further, be equally proactive about conveying meaningful information to the public that underscores how well the organisation is performing its mission.
Transparency is not just good government PR, but good private sector PR as well. As R.P. Reid writes in Waging Public Relations: A Cornerstone of Fourth-Generation Warfare (2002): “Though the truth takes many forms and has many elements, there is no room in media relations for anything but the truth. Lying is not only unacceptable, it is counterproductive. You will be found out. And you will ruin your credibility and your organization’s credibility for a long time to follow. Period.”
Eilperin, J. (2006, April 16). Scientists say they’re being gagged by Bush: White House monitors their media contacts. Washington Post.
Reid, R.P. (2002). Waging public relations: A cornerstone of fourth-generation warfare. Journal of Information Warfare 1(2): 51 – 65.
Revkin, A. C. (2006, January 29). Climate expert says NASA tried to silence him. New York Times.
By Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are the author’s own. Photo via Pixabay.
“Walder is one of the most prominent children’s advocates in the ultra-Orthodox community, the founder of the Bnei Brak-based Center for the Child and Family and is a recipient of the Prime Minister’s ‘protector of the child’ award. He has written 80 books, including numerous volumes of the popular ‘Kids Speak’ series, which are a fixture in ultra-Orthodox households across the country.”
“the 52-year-old Walder, while maintaining an adored, beloved and accessible image for children and youth, allegedly sexually exploited girls for years. One of them was little more than twelve when the exploitation began, while two others were 15 and 20.”
Walder allegedly groomed “Talia” slowly and then more directly.
When it ended he allegedly told the girl that “it was my word against his, and that given the choice, it was clear who would be believed.”
Another young woman, “Dina,” alleges abuse that happened at age 20, when she was under his “treatment.”
“Dina” told Haaretz that Walder invoked his “credit with God” and said “that she deserved credit for sleeping with him, because the sexual encounters with her gave him the power to write to the children of Israel.”
Each survivor provided names of individuals to the newspaper and they “confirmed the women’s stories.”
“Dina” went to the police but they cited “lack of evidence” in closing it at the time. Now, they are investigating anew.
Walder, through his attorneys, denied the allegations.
Response of Jewish Child Advocates
Reactions across the board were generally positive, reserving criticism for hypocrisy or inconsistency, and advising people to follow best practice — taking a measured tone.
The most helpful response of all, in my view, comes from well-known child advocate Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz. He released this statement. The Rabbi read off of a prepared text for the purpose of precision (keep in mind he just won a lawsuit in which a pedophile sued him for warning local area parents about his presence). It was posted November 16, 2021:
Excerpts/key points from Rabbi Horowitz:
“To begin with, at this point I know nothing other than what I’ve read in the media, and since I have neither the training nor the resources to determine the validity of the accusations it would be highly inappropriate for me to do so. Rabbi Walder is innocent until proven guilty and fully deserves the opportunity to defend himself against these accusations.”
“At the same time, these allegations need to be taken very very seriously, and I recommend that parents whose children were in contact with Rabbi Walder seek professional guidance on how to speak and more importantly how to listen to your children, not from well-meaning people like myself but only from credentialed mental health professionals who are trained and experienced in dealing with child abuse….parents are also encouraged to learn about the red flag signs of children who God-forbid have been abused so you can have more informed conversations with your child’s therapist. It’s extremely important that all parents use this opportunity to have informed, research-based child safety conversations with your kids without unnecessarily frightening them. Now more than ever is the time to inform your kids that they can discuss anything, absolutely anything with you, at any time.
“To the best of my knowledge, the alleged victims are anonymous. If they do go public, they must, must be treated with respect and their safety assured.”
“When discussing the allegations, please be aware that some abuse victims might find listening to all of this very unsettling, or worse. This is often referred to as ‘triggering’ and we should do whatever we can to avoid needlessly causing pain to abuse survivors, and always keep in mind that you just don’t know who among your friends or community members is an abuse survivor.”
“In closing, please be mindful that this horrible situation will deeply affect the generation of children who were raised, entertained, and often inspired by Rabbi Walder’s books. If you feel you must discuss this matter, please do so with sensitivity and tact. As it is the children will have a very hard time processing all of this.”
The researchers found a Facebook social network comprised of “fake profiles” with some that indicated a “gender discrepancy between the name and the image.” Further, the profiles were established more than three years ago in the same week…with the various accounts members of one another’s networks.
“A network consists of fake profiles, and some have a gender discrepancy between the name and the image. The profile picture of the network members was set up the same week in August 2018, and the accounts are members of each other.”
There is no doubt more information forthcoming.
By Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are the author’s own. Public domain.
Attorneys Aaron Siri and Elizabeth Brehm are advocating for 11 physicians injured by the Covid-19 vaccine whose reports have been dismissed by the Federal government. This letter summarizes the concerns and has statements from the doctors attached as well.
They seek to have the adverse effects acknowledged, to meet with the relevant experts to describe issues experienced, and to ensure that a portion of Covid-19 vaccine funding is allocated to the treatment of vaccine injuries.
10 Critical Issues Raised By Letter
Ignoring relevant data needed for public health
Appropriate liability for injury
Politicized terminology – use of term “vaccine” for gene therapy that does not prevent infection or transmission
Politicized scientific establishment
Silencing of government-funded medical/scientific experts
Prohibited use of government communication experts to serve as propagandists
Misuse of government funds to gaslight the public regarding expressions of concern
False rumors due to suppression of legitimate information
Mr. Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U. S. Department of Health & Human Services
Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, Director Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, Deputy Director COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
Dr. Janet Woodcock, Interim Commissioner Dr. Peter Marks, Director
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food & Drug Administration
Re: Physician Whistleblower Accounts of Severe Covid-19 Vaccine Injuries
Dear Mr. Becerra, Dr. Walensky, Dr. Woodcock, Dr. Marks, and Dr. Shimabukuro:
We write with the utmost urgency on behalf of physicians from across this country — see the 11 declarations attached — whose firsthand reports of serious and fatal injuries from COVID- 19 vaccines to your public health agencies have not been taken seriously and remain unaddressed.
A. Injuries from Covid-19 Vaccines
The harms they have been reporting are not redness at the injection site. The harms are all serious. As detailed in the appended declarations signed by these physicians, they include serious cases of:
small fiber neuropathy;
loss of temperature sensation in extremities;
constant shakiness to muscles;
lesion on spinal cord;
dizziness and imbalance;
menstrual cycle irregularities;
persistent numbness and tingling in hands;
Each of these harms has been confirmed, based on the clinical judgment of the patient’s treating physician, as being caused by a Covid-19 vaccine.
These physicians and their patients all supported the Covid-19 vaccine.
Almost all of them are fully vaccinated.
It is understandable that you would not want to admit that a product you have authorized, approved, and widely promoted caused harm, but we implore you to have the moral fortitude to rise above your personal interests.
These physicians stand to lose an incredible amount coming forward – their income, jobs, careers, privacy, etc. But they do so to put the interest of the public and of their patients ahead of their own. We ask you to do the same.
To avoid future harms from this vaccine and to heal the doctors’ patients, and in some cases to heal themselves, research is critically needed to understand how the Covid-19 vaccine is causing these harms.
Understanding same is the first step in developing effective treatments for these harms, many of which are novel and otherwise unresponsive to conventional treatments.
Physicians in this group have been pleading with your agencies for months to conduct this research. Instead, their concerns have been treated as a public relations issue, not a health issue.
You tell the public to trust their doctors. If individuals have concerns about the vaccine, you tell them: “speak with your doctor.” These very doctors are telling you there is a serious problem.
They have been telling you that for months in myriad correspondences with your agencies.
It should not be that you only listen to doctors if they parrot your preferred messaging regarding Covid-19 vaccines.
To the contrary, they should especially be listened to when their clinical experience directly opposes that messaging.
These doctors, like most doctors, are the last individuals that want to admit that a Covid- 19 vaccine caused their patient’s or their own injuries. And they are the last to want to publicly make such an admission. Truly. But reality does not afford them these luxuries. The injuries they report are all too real.
These devastating injuries are detailed in the attached and, as noted, each has been confirmed, based on the clinical judgment of the patient’s treating physician, as being caused by a Covid-19 vaccine.
It is statistically improbable that any one physician should see numerous serious Covid-19 vaccine injuries if the safety claims regarding this vaccine were true. Yet, in just the appended declarations, there are 4 physicians that have collectively treated more than 18 patients with a serious Covid-19 vaccine injury.
It also should not be that a physician should have to “risk it all” to advocate for themselves or their patients.
These physicians rightly fear retaliation by your agencies and the medical establishment by coming forward.
This toxic environment is the result of your zealous promotion, including through the press and social media, of these vaccines and denigration of those – and especially any health care professional – who question your conclusions or guidance regarding these products.
Because of this fear of retaliation, a number of the physicians requested to keep their identities confidential. We have verified each of their identities by directly communicating with each over videoconference, verifying their medical license numbers and their national provider identifiers, and cross-referencing the foregoing with publicly available sources.
B. Dire Need for Your Agencies to Address These Injuries
It is time to stop ignoring these physicians who are but the brave few willing to step forward.
These physicians, when reaching out to your agencies for the last 10 months, seeking to address these harms physician-to-physician, genuinely believed your agencies would want to learn about their harms, address them immediately, and to seek to develop treatments for their and their patients’ debilitating conditions.
They have sadly come to realize their assumptions were false.
Even worse, your agencies have dismissed concerns raised by many of these physicians by stating that the harms they are reporting are not being detected in VAERS. But dismissing these harms based on VAERS is entirely inappropriate.
As you are aware, an AHRQ-funded study by Harvard Medical School of 715,000 patients tracked reporting to VAERS over a three-year period at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. It concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” (1)
This disturbingly low rate is confirmed by the rate at which anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccine is reported to VAERS. The CDC Director claims that “Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and occurred in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United States based on events reported to VAERS.” (2)
That claim is contradicted by a recent study at Mass General Brigham that assessed anaphylaxis in a clinical setting after the administration of COVID-19 vaccines and found “severe reactions consistent with anaphylaxis occurred at a rate of 2.47 per 10,000 vaccinations.” (3)
This is equivalent to 50 to 120 times more cases than what VAERS and the CDC are reporting.
The underreporting of anaphylaxis by the CDC and VAERS is particularly troubling because
it is mandatory for medical providers to report anaphylaxis after any COVID-19 vaccine to VAERS, (4)
most of these reactions occur within 30 minutes of vaccination, (5) and
there has been an intense campaign by health authorities to inform medical providers that they need to report anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS.
Nonetheless, the rate of reporting still appears to be only around 0.8 to 2 percent of all cases of anaphylaxis.
This raises serious concerns regarding the underreporting of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, especially for adverse events that do not occur immediately after vaccination and where health care providers have not been specifically directed to report such adverse events to VAERS.
Yet you dismiss all of the injuries complained of by the doctors in the appended declarations because you have not seen a signal for same in VAERS.
C. Steps Needed to Address These Injuries
Given your conduct to date and the passage of over 10 months without addressing their harms in any concrete manner, we hereby write on their behalf to demand the following:
Confirm that, for purposes of addressing the harms detailed by these physicians, you will presume these injures have been factually and accurately represented in the appended letter unless you have documentary evidence to the contrary.
Agree to meet with the physicians described herein within 14 days with a multidisciplinary team of experts from NIH and FDA with the purpose of discussing and devising the research needed to uncover the mechanism of injury for these harms and the steps necessary to discover effective treatments. The disciplinary team should include, at the least, leading experts in the fields of
3. Agree to allocate 1% of all funding that HHS and its agencies have with regard to Covid-19 toward identifying the mechanisms of injury from Covid-19 vaccines and preventing and treating such injuries. This results in 99% of Covid-19 funding being allocated toward preventing and addressing harms from Covid-19 disease and 1% of funding being allocated toward preventing and addressing harm from Covid-19 vaccines. This allocation is more than reasonable given the intent and drive by HHS to vaccinate every individual in the United States, and that those injured by Covid-19 vaccination are at least as worthy of protection and help as those injured by Covid-19 disease.
Please confirm that you will fulfill your duties as public servants and meet these exceedingly reasonable requests.
If we do not receive such confirmation in writing on or before noon on November 1, 2021 to the foregoing, we intend to take all available legal action including pursuant to, inter alia, 5 U.S.C. § 553; 5 U.S.C. § 706, 21 C.F.R. § 10.30 and, more importantly, an appeal to the American people to force political change on this issue.
Yet clients think the opposite: “Why would I want to make myself look bad?”
What they don’t understand is that people intuitively sense and respect appropriate honesty and and integrity. (Yes, it’s ok to say “we can’t discuss that.”)
Looking back on my career, one of the best public relations efforts I was ever involved with was the Customs and Border Protection publication Frontline. I was involved in launching it and running it years ago.
Why was Frontline so good? Because CBP invested in real writers. The kind who did months of research before writing a story. The kind who did many interviews, sometimes taping them, and even transcribing the tapes.
We had a lot of writers, real photographers, and some of us even traveled to the field to cover the story personally.
The quality of the work was a direct result of CBP’s investment in telling accurate, compelling stories. Sure it was sometimes tough to wait for everyone’s approval. But it was worth the wait.
Those magazines still read well today.
By Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are the author’s own. Public domain.
“Experts say SARS-CoV-2 originated in bats. That’s also how the coronaviruses behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) got started.”
But how did the disease go from bats to people?
“SARS-CoV-2 made the jump to humans at one of Wuhan’s open-air ‘wet markets.’ They’re where customers buy fresh meat and fish, including animals that are killed on the spot.”
But do people really buy bats at open-air markets in China?
“Some wet markets sell wild or banned species like cobras, wild boars, and raccoon dogs.”
Even if there was a bat at an open-air market in China, how would the virus go from a bat to a person?
“Crowded conditions can let viruses from different animals swap genes. Sometimes the virus changes so much it can start to infect and spread among people.”
But there were no bats there.
“Still, the Wuhan market didn’t sell bats at the time of the outbreak.”
So why are we talking about bats? Oh, maybe it’s scaly anteaters.
That’s why early suspicion also fell on pangolins, also called scaly anteaters, which are sold illegally in some markets in China. Some coronaviruses that infect pangolins are similar to SARS-CoV-2.”
The reason for all this obfuscation is obvious. It is more likely that someone deliberately released the agent than that there was a random accident. However, whoever caused the pandemic would then have to be “punished.”
Thus Trump walked in with his “China virus” narrative. This, in combination with several messages from “Q”, created the impression among Trump’s hardcore followers that China was responsible for the pandemic.
China, argued Q, wanted to tank the Trump presidency by tanking the U.S. economy:
“https://twitter.com/drsimonegold/status/1306372660587184128 How do you ‘extend’ lockdown(s) [economic hardship(s), unemployment, fear, death count, dementia Joe, etc.] in order to paint narrative mail-in voting [when did narrative start (March?_early?_planned?)] needed to ‘save’ lives [+ballot harvesting] in order to generate a future narrative election day +1 which casts doubt as to legitimacy of POTUS win [Constitutional Crisis][“not all mail-in ballots counted” “how many mail-in ballots lost or did not arrive in key battleground states which could have returned a different result” “we must investigate who cast a vote but it did not register” “we must go door-to-door if needed [ballot harvest]” “our lives are at stake” “the sky is falling” in order to legally challenge, delay results, enact riots and chaos in an attempt to overturn [coup d’etat]. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY? What role will select military inserts play [the ‘bribe’]? [playbook known] What did we learn from past attempt(s)? Spying [surveillance + campaign insert(s) + WH insert(s)]. Mueller. Impeachment. Why did it take an ‘outsider’ to finally deliver the ‘start’ of peace in the Middle East? Why did it take an ‘outsider’ to finally deliver the ‘start’ of finally holding China accountable? THE DISEASE CALLED CORRUPTION. Running RED. Q”
This explanation may be plausible. But even if it were accurate, it seems obvious that the public would not see it endorsed by official sources unless they wanted to justify war against China.
We did not go to war against China and nobody suggested that we did.
Now, it is true that mail-in voting occurred as a result of the pandemic. It is true that Biden was declared the winner despite numerous reports of irregularities and fraud, which were dismissed (and it is outside the scope of this article to discuss those).Timepublished an article admitting that there was a large-scale secret deal between many parties to crown Biden the winner, essentially no matter what.
Logically, it is not plausible to argue that this public relations campaign had anything to do with the COVID19 pandemic. Rather, it was a concerted, large-scale political effort dedicated to driving Trump out of power.
But there were other outcomes of the pandemic that aren’t clearly political. What did it truly accomplish, aside from the Biden presidency?
Most prominently, the entire world was forced to submit to the dictates of the medical-scientific establishment:
Genetic testing for the presence of the COVID19 virus, even though the virus couldn’t be isolated in a lab
A vaccine as the one and only reliable cure for the problem, even though the disease is overwhelmingly survivable (a kind of flu), there were simpler treatments available, and the medicine is experimental
Requirement that all wear masks, even children, nearly all the time
In addition, funding has been provided for numerous COVID19-related research initiatives, including genetics.
One cannot help but think of the longstanding American imperative, discussed in “Is COVID19 An ‘Inside Job'” (archive), to find out what the enemy knows about bioweapons before the enemy can unleash it on us–regardless of whether the enemy’s knowledge was obtained through torture, for example on concentration camp victims.
Last night in his State of the Union speech, President Biden introduced the nonpartisan – “let’s cure cancer” initiative — again the focus is on the medical/scientific establishment as somehow the salvation of humanity.
I believe that whoever unleashed the COVID19 pandemic had the aim of pushing humanity into submission to the medical-scientific establishment.
This is not inconsistent with the broad aims of the intelligence community, to have knowledge of all, to see all, and to control all, regardless of the ethics involved, under the rubric of national security.
By Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are the author’s own. Text is public domain.
False flags, or enacted scenarios intended to create perceptions among the public, are real and the U.S. has engaged in them. Jefferson Morley: “False flag operations…are not just a figment [of] the conspiratorial imagination. They have also served as instruments of U.S. regime change policy. These tactics have never been repudiated by U.S. officials. They are a weapon in Washington’s arsenal.”
William Ramsey notes that there is visible occult numerology in 9/11 and other significant terror attacks including the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000; the Bali bombings of 2002; the Madrid bombings of 2004; the London and Amman, Jordan bombings of 2005; and more. He states: “These major terrorist bombings were situated on dates containing the numbers 11, 77, 88 and [the satanist] Aleister Crowley’s birthday.”
If Ramsey is correct, someone involved in commissioning these attacks is drawing on occult symbols/numerology to make the calculations about when and how to do so.
Based on the prevalence of significant dates and other symbols, there is no reason to think that the use of occultism in military attacks is limited to one country’s military planning function or that it is a recent phenomenon.
“The wicked Haman chose to draw lots in order in order to determine the most propitious month and day for attacking the Jews. The ancient Persians believed that the signs of the zodiac affected man’s destiny, and accorded great honor to the astrologers and magicians.”
“Paul Keenan, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Indianapolis field office, said Friday that agents questioned Hole last year after his mother called police to say that her son might commit ‘suicide by cop.’….He said agents…did not identify Hole as espousing a racially motivated ideology.”
When a mass shooting occurs for which there is no explanation, and that shooting bears the marks of a deliberate narrative, it makes sense to check for the presence of false flag operations.
The individuals encircled by this tragedy, from victims to families to law enforcement and so on, are unaware of any nefarious activity. If there are bad actors here, they are few, and playing on their innocence and trauma of the many.
It is possible that when the FBI questioned the young man and let him go, bad actors became aware of his existence because he was “in the system.” They may then have attacked him using “voice to skull” technology which essentially told him what to do (to carry out the attack). This technology is already on the market as a consumer product to play personalized music. (Recall the Noah Green incident just this month.)
The attack was planned well ahead of time, after the COVID-19 pandemic got started, to spin the narrative of the day: That hate of Asians is out of control, that mentally deranged White supremacists threaten the country, and that guns must be taken away. The reality is that while hate crimes against Asians are indeed increasing, and this is a crisis that must be addressed, White supremacists are an imagined culprit. In fact, notes Rick Moran, “almost all the attacks on Asians have been carried out by members of minority groups.”
Racism Is Real, Therefore Exploited
Hate crime against Asians or any group should be condemned in the strongest of terms, and I condemn it.
PSYOP are planned operations that convey selected information and indicators to foreign target audiences (TAs) to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately, the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of all PSYOP is to create in neutral, friendly, or hostile foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or desired behavior that support the achievement of U.S. national objectives and the military mission.”
What We Can Do
Refuse to accept pre-formatted media narratives which serve more as public relations than as investigatory journalism.
By Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are the author’s own. Text of this blog is public domain.
Note: If you haven’t seen it yet, you can watch the episode here.
On a personal level, I would like to move on from writing about Q, but this is unfinished business considering that I literally wrote three books, a dedicated collection of articles, academic stuff, public affairs commentary and much, much more due to my immersion in the writings of this anonymous team.
I would really like for people to be focused on the present, and not build a movement around a dead campaign. Q is gone now, he isn’t coming back (let’s be honest, Q is 99% a “he”), and anyone who speaks in his name is probably mangling the intent somehow.
But the HBO documentary is worth watching. It isn’t a “hit job,” but rather the product of one journalist’s curiosity as to who this figure is, or was.
(Of course, anyone who admits to being this person is putting themselves in mortal danger. This is something any reader of the Q messages would know. So in my opinion, whoever might come forward and try to take credit for the campaign is automatically a total liar, or suicidal.)
Despite the doomed nature of this quest, I enjoyed watching Cullen Hoback interview some of the most prominent people associated with this project, if only because I have personally spent so many hours studying and discussing Q (on Twitter, as @drdannielle – now suspended probably forever) that I believe I could have earned a graduate degree in the subject.
When it comes to the Q project, I am really in the middle of it. The entire project was truly a “storm” for me, integrating my own personal journey toward becoming an “awakened” citizen as well as my background in government, communications, branding, marketing, public relations, sociology, and popular culture (my first book was Women and Soap Opera), not to mention my extremely religious upbringing and focus on Jewish theology.
But I want to forget it. This is for a lot of reasons. Mainly I see something that was very good and perfect at one point being ruined.
This is supposed to be about the show; too much runup.
Overall it was strange for me to see that although I was raised in an extremely religious Jewish environment and became some kind of radical leftist feminist over the years, eventually to settle on a vaguely liberal mindset — I am actually closer to what the Q movement would call “Patriot” thinking and the Q believers shown in the documentary. I believe in citizen sovereignty. I love the American flag. I hate globalism and the tyrannical repression that hides behind the velvet gloves of money.
So I found myself in the evangelical Christian, deeply Patriotic and well-meaning group that formed the core of Q discussion (at least until President Trump was removed from office in the election). Watching the documentary, I saw the type of people who were true believers, and who accepted me as part of the movement.
But with the death of Q (symbolic death, meaning that Q no longer posts anything) I see that the Q movement has lurched rather forcibly toward antisemitism, I think because antisemitism has been forcibly injected into that narrative. It doesn’t seem to me like the same people.
Also, I’ve decided that all polarities are suspect, and I am looking for the answer in uniting Left and Right, working from within to provoke people to think more critically, instead of instantly assuming that they “must” inhabit some side or else betray the country totally. I am suspicious of the “rise of Antifa” coming at the same time as the “rise of Q,” and it seems to me that some very manipulative people are pushing all these narratives.
Whether you are “into” Q or not, it is worth watching this show. I said to myself that the level of insanity we went through in this country, with the President of the United States communicating in puzzling codes, is absolutely mind-bending. But it is perhaps no less mind-bending than the type of people who were running the country behind a benign facade.
It’s worth watching the show to get a sense of the influencers around the movement, both pro and con.
For example, Liz Crokin is someone I deeply admire, she participated in the Out of Shadowsdocumentary about Hollywood and child sex trafficking, and I will plug her book Malicehere because it’s great. She supported “Q” right from the beginning, and before that the truth behind “Pizzagate,” not because there was anything in it for her, but because it was the right thing to do. And Liz suffered for that.
On the other hand, I thought it was deeply disingenuous for Jack Posobiec to claim that he went to Comet Ping Pong to debunk Pizzagate…I watched the livestream and it did seem like just the opposite to me.
Jerome Corsi, who at first supported Q and then reversed himself, actually blocked me on Twitter (as did others, like George Webb, when I started to ask too many questions).
Among the anti-Q crowd, Travis View comes across as authentic, basically peeved at what he thinks is a fake story altogether. I can appreciate how a lot of people feel that way, but for me, I came to the conclusion that former President Trump and Q were working hand in glove. It was never supposed to be fully literal; not sure how well everyone understood that.
Finally, Will Sommer–though he possesses a kind of outsider’s knowledge of the chronology of Q–somehow doesn’t seem to grasp it.
I want to close this review with a comment which may seem unrelated.
Somebody asked me about critical race theory training; do I believe it’s a good thing?
The answer, for me, is “yes.” Critical race theory is basic sociology. It’s about unpacking, unloading, and detangling our freedoms from the hidden biases that were “baked” into them when White people were dominant.
At the same time, critical race theory explains situations where White people are non-dominant, but are made to feel ashamed because they are White. Whoever is the dominant group will define reality, marginalizing and silencing the “Other.”
The Q movement was supposed to be about looking at one another as human beings. It was supposed to be about escaping the politically-driven, cheap and exploitative con games that have been associated with politics for so long.
Unfortunately, issues of race were used as a way to attack Q believers, because that is a politically effective tool. Voicing concerns about “violent extremism” is yet another way to undermine our concerns about corruption, including child sex trafficking.
If this HBO documentary is any indication, I don’t think the con games are going to work anymore. It’s not just that people are getting weary of them, or that they’re going to want to know more about Q from an objective standpoint. It is that they will also begin to study and criticize Q as a manipulative operation in its own right. They will “get over” the idea that there are certain things which are not discussable because they are politically risky, and they will simply want to know more and talk to get at truth.
In closing, here’s one of the things that upsets me about the “Q” movement the most (aside from the fact that it did damage to my personal relationships, as I was completely consumed with serving as a “digital soldier” in my personal time, thinking that I was needed to “help President Trump save the country.”)
What bothers me is that President Trump wanted to establish himself as the enemy of the Establishment, and he used child sex trafficking to do that, at the same time as he managed to not make any arrests of prominent people, when that was the entire foundation of the Q messages.
What this did was to make followers of Trump, and Q, look like fools.
I continue to be grateful for President Trump and for Q, but I am committed to evaluating my own journey into being “redpilled” objectively in retrospect. How much of that was good for me, and how much of it represented another form of brainwashing?
This post was difficult to write.
By Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are the author’s own. Public domain.
The conspiracy to declare Joe Biden as President, regardless of the actual outcome of the election, has succeeded; Biden was sworn into office on January 20, 2021 and is performing the duties of the office.
Meanwhile, his predecessor, Donald J. Trump, is on trial in the Senate for inciting his followers to violence, because the speech he gave at a rally on January 6, 2021 was immediately followed by a riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Conveniently ignored in all of this is the fact that the riot was pre-planned–and that everybody knows it, from the former Capitol police chief toactivist John Sullivan, who filmed the riot from the inside, acknowledged openly that the planned riot was discussed as a forthcoming event in so-called “underground” chats. Sullivan stated:
“As far as them storming the Capitol, I knew that was going to happen. I’m on chats that are underground that are sending out flyers that are just like, ‘Storm all Capitols on the 6th.’ It wasn’t anything that was secret. It was something that was out there…and they did it.”
Logically, how can President Trump be on trial for inciting violence that was already destined to occur?
Well, nobody seems to care about that, amid all the posturing.
As Creative Destruction media reported (January 18, 2021), Dybynyn is wanted in Ukraine. Twitter user Michael MacKay, who describes himself as a “veteran of Ukraine democratic and civil society renaissance,” states that Dybynyn is an “infowarrior for Inter TV…beneficially by Putin pal Medvedchuk” (see article on that) and adds that the U.S. has underestimated the extent to which Russia has fueled “insurrection.”
“One of the reasons the United States is faced with insurrection is its failure to understand and take seriously Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. has failed to declare the so-called ‘DPR’ and ‘LPR’ to be terrorist organizations, or Russia to be a regime of state terrorism.”
Now, I am not a subject matter expert on geopolitics by any means. But whoever this Dybnyn is, I have been reading Q’s posts from the beginning, and have read thousands of user comments on Q as well. In all the years of my immersion in this topic, I never once heard of such a person as a “QAnon shaman.”
Further, it makes no sense, if only from a public relations standpoint, that part of Q’s irregular warfare strategy against the Deep State would be to work with or incite a pro-Russian Ukranian operative to draw the crowd into a riot.
It does make sense that the “Deep State” would create the crime and then blame Trump for it.
It is interesting that the group Dybnyn is allegedly part of, Pravy Sektor, is allied with AntiFa. George Eliason notes that “Antifa and its Pirate Party leadership are in league with extremist Right Sector (Pravy Sektor) leadership in Ukraine.”
Why on earth would AntiFa be working with nationalists? AntiFa is supposed to be anti-nationalism.
George Eliason is an investigative journalist who has shed some light on the matter. In August 2020, SGT Report highlighted his reporting, with this headline: “AntiFa was imported to America from Europe by the Obama-Biden administration to forge domestic terrorism alliance with BLM.”
“Thanks to Antifa leadership in Seattle and actions in Portland, it became easy to open Antifa up showing the ties to Germany and ultra-nationalists in Ukraine and the ultra-nationalist Ukrainian Diaspora in the USA. History will remember this as John Brennan’s insurgency. The outgoing CIA director beefed up a domestic insurgent movement with foreign fighters on behalf of the Obama-Biden administration.”
Eliason further states that “regardless of the foreign actors involved, this is a thoroughly American problem. No foreign country is trying to take over the US government. This must be dealt with as an American problem.”
These fighters appear to be tools of the Deep State–in effect a hired army.
Accordingly, CD Media states that Dybnyn was falsely portrayed by the media as a “Russian propagandist and provocateur,” because he is actually working for Petr Poroshenko, former president of the Ukraine; apparently when that came out, “big media dropped it.”
“Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov battalion is ‘believed to have participated in training and radicalizing’ US-based white supremacists, the FBI said in a recent indictment of several California men involved in the Charlottesville violence.”
It’s clear that somebody wanted Trump supporters to look like racists.
Again, in my time as a strong Trump supporter, I have not found the movement or the people in the movement to be racists at all.
So it seems to me that somebody orchestrated the use of Ukranians as agents provocateur, convenient stage actors with which to frame Donald J. Trump and ruin his chances to lead the country, much less be re-elected.
Well before the 2016 election, I had my first introduction to “anon” culture by watching YouTube videos by someone calling themselves “Anonymous” in the plural.
“We are anonymous,” the person would say, their voice modulated by a filter. “We are legion.”
To be honest with you I didn’t pay much attention to those videos but I thought the concept of anonymous whistleblowers was a triple-edged sword, and some of those edges weren’t good.
Of course some of these people had noble intentions: using uncomfortable truth to pry change from an unwilling, corrupted system.
But surely some of them were evil: lying to create a public affairs crisis, hacking to extract cash for silence.
“Anons” and the 2016 Election
Since that time, and before “Q” (not “QAnon,” it’s “Q”) other anonymous sources (“anons”) came forward to talk about things they knew without revealing their names.
“FBIAnon” and “Zero” were focused on t he FBI
It is irrefutable that these anons influenced the election. They posted things online which were then either read directly or picked up by bloggers, and in turn voters read the information and made decisions about which candidate was the more credible.
OSINT Anons and “Q”
The role of “Q” with respect to “anons” was to basically “throw them a bone” and let them do their own research. This is what they did next:
Share “digs” with the public, typically on an anonymous forum (e.g. 8kun)
Discuss with others to sift truth from falsehood
“Anon” designations (jargon):
Anons are sometimes known as “autists” as a compliment. They have laser-like focus, logical thinking and analytical skills.
When an “anon” is a specialist in a particular area, they will identify themselves as a “[subject]-fag,” e.g. saying “planefag here.” This is not a reference to the LGBTQ+ community as far as I know.
I believe that anons would make great employees, particularly for law enforcement (“Q” suggested this as well). They are:
Motivated by public service
Frequently online–at any given moment, there are uncountable “anons” conducting “digs”
Not wealthy– or as one wrote, “living on tuna and ramen from the gas station, all donations appreciated”
Skeptical regarding truth claims
Benevolent–even guiding fellow “anons” on how to void disinformation
Knowledgeable about technology
Resourceful – knows how to find “open source intelligence” and then provide proof to the reader
Most importantly, they are impartial and privilege fact over feelings.
Challenging Establishment Narratives
From a public relations perspective, given that all institutions are by nature self-protective, they do not want to hear from “disruptive” people who refuse to listen to the “party line” but rather challenge the official narrative with other information.
Sometimes the information shared by these anons is true. For example, the contemporary movement to identify serial sexual predators and human traffickers would probably not exist if there were no channel for victims to come forward anonymously. Law enforcement needs the input of these anonymous sources in order to chase down these powerful, well-funded, and typically highly manipulative criminals.
Sometimes their information is wrong.
Often the truth is somewhere in the middle, especially if the object of inquiry is heavily guarded and private, and the task is to tease out reality from propaganda, conjecture, and/or bigotry.
Take the Rothschild family and the negative publicity it gets in the “Q” narrative, as the family is associated there both with Satanism and financial exploitation through central banking.
“Responding to the demands of clergy and of local guild members, state and local governments limited Jews to vocations disdained by gentiles. For this reason, perhaps as many as three-fourths of the Jews in Central and Western Europe were limited to the precarious occupations of retail peddling, hawking, and ‘street-banking,’ that is, moneylending….In their struggle for a livelihood, they generated a sizable underclass of beggars, fencers, pimps, even robbers, thereby creating a self-fulfilling gentile scenario of Jews, one that would be endlessly invoked by Jew-haters.”
Baron Benjamin de Rothschild, who recently passed away of a heart attack, discussed in an interview how “there is not much we can do” about the “horrific stories” circulating about his family online:
“There are people who don’t like us. That is always a risk. In the past, when horrific stories about the family were published in the press, one could respond. Today, everything is uploaded to the Internet and YouTube and there is not much we can do. There are groundless, horrible stories there.”
From a public relations perspective, if I were a Rothschild, I would hire anons to surface all the bad stuff, and then respond in public, in detail.
Please note that I am not advocating for the hiring of “shills,” or individuals tasked to steer the conversation a certain way. That kind of “help” is propaganda, disinformation, gatekeeping and ultimately counterproductive from a reputation standpoint.
Individuals on anonymous forums can easily identify such people.
It May Seem Counterintuitive, But Law Enforcement Would Benefit From Hiring Anons
From a law enforcement point of view, anonymous sources such as this, who go public rather than sharing what they know more privately, have traditionally been seen as problematic.
When you’re trying to catch criminals, you don’t want them to know what you are doing. It is a certainty that criminals monitor online chatter and if genuine information relevant to them appears online, this only makes it easier for them to hide.
When information appearing online is demeaning to law enforcement, it undermines public trust and cooperation, to the point where an investigation could even be impeded by uncooperative witnesses.
Therefore, it is understandable that law enforcement would have a negative view of anons.
However, they might turn this thinking around. Hiring anons provides a massive gain in terms of quantity of researchers and quality of provable information. In addition, where information is faulty, it can be cross-checked to ensure that “fake news” does not gain traction, as anons do live in the real world and can themselves debunk the stories they see circulated with no basis.
Positivity, Not Phobia, Would Benefit Anons And Society
Anons are a rich source of quality information, and they offer a social channel through which self-serving, corrupt, and even criminal Establishment narratives can be defused before becoming problematic and oppressive.
Society should make use of the benefits they offer.
Some might worry that the information anons provide will be absorbed into a corrupted justice system, but that objection does not hold up when one realizes that anons will continue to operate whether they are hired to do their work or simply work for free.
The reality is that the information they want to share will be distributed on the Internet regardless, unless some tyrannical regime literally turned off the Internet entirely.
An interesting and useful article about Q, which mentions the anons, is available here.
By Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are the author’s own. Public domain.
In America, grassroots organizing is vital to free elections. But in the 2020 Presidential election, one can argue that the level of coordination between opponents to President Trump actually made it impossible for him to be declared the winner.
The Time article hints at an effort to normalize any crimes associated with the “vast left-wing conspiracy” to anoint Joe Biden as the winner of the Presidential election. The language is revealing, describing the massive venture variously as a “conspiracy,” “handshake,” “vast, cross-partisan campaign,” and “extraordinary shadow effort.”
We learn from the article that “the pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day.” (Click here to read it.)
In other words, the work that went on behind the scenes was only superficially alluded to in a public statement.
Also misleadingly, the press release says clearly that these business and labor leaders have convened to support election integrity and not to support a specific candidate: “With voting ending today, it is imperative that election officials be given the space and time to count every vote in accordance with applicable laws.”
Indeed, this is the writer’s claim too: “The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all.
The problem is that words and reality do not match, what we are reading is Orwellian double-speak. The supposedly impartial effort was actually a deeply biased one. The Time article makes this clear: “The forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.”
In other words, there was no scenario envisioned by the partners of this scheme within which Donald Trump would be re-elected as President, because the very act of his protesting the election results was deemed illegitimate from the start: “To stop the coup they feared, the left was ready to flood the streets.”
Is it credible to argue that Trump was planning to steal the election if necessary? Not really.
There has been investigation and even prosecution of some of those who investigated him, due to their bias against him.)
Further, is it credible to argue that the activists profiled in this article were really focused on the election itself? Again, not so much.
Astonishingly, the decentralized “alliance” of activists (called “people power” here) not only admits to a coordinated effort to suppress the election results in November, but also confesses to exploiting the tragic death of George Floyd months before specifically to harm Trump’s chances at the polls.
The information in the article is shocking in and of itself, but there is a heightened dimension to it considering our toxic information environment. Had a nonpartisan or conservative outlook published this, one can easily imagine that:
Other media outlets would ignore it, or if the story were to gain traction, they might dismiss the claims outright as “baseless conspiracy theory.”
A “fact-checking” organization might seize on a single element of the story that was misleading or incorrect to discredit the entire story.
The journalists themselves might suffer vicious, personal media smears or be doxxed or threatened.
Lawyers might threaten or issue lawsuits designed to intimidate the journalists.
Social media platforms might add warning language to the link, or suspend the journalist on the claim that they had violated the platform’s Terms of Service.
Reading the Time article, it becomes clear that the scheme to which these characters confessed is not small. Rather, the scale of the “conspiracy” (their word) to stop Trump from contesting Biden’s election win was enormous and nationwide. The social media campaign alone was massive in scale:
“The Voting Rights Lab and IntoAction created state-specific memes and graphics, spread by email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, urging that every vote be counted. Together, they were viewed more than 1 billion times.”
The more I read of the article, the more I surmised that language such as “voting rights” as used by the Left is deceptive in nature, code for “keep the candidate we don’t like out of office.”
As such, regardless of the debate over whether election fraud actually occurred, this alliance clearly amounted to a no-holds-barred attack on Donald Trump’s chances of being declared the winner of the election, regardless of whether fraud had indeed occurred and regardless of any attempt by him to oppose it.
From the article:
“Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.”
Of course, these claims of success open the doors to many questions regarding the legality of the actions that these “partners” take credit for. Some of the potential issues include:
Changing voting systems and/or laws; generally, abuse of the court (“lawfare”) for political purposes
Sources and use of public and private funding (use of public funding for a partisan cause comes to mind)
Whether poll workers were used to suppress poll workers in a partisan manner
Whether voting by mail was encouraged with the knowledge that there were not adequate safeguards to ensure election integrity (for example, that the voter rolls included people who were deceased, or for another example, whether signatures were properly checked)
The weaponization of social media and misuse of user data
Alliances between public relations professionals and the media such that a single narrative was formulated and delivered to the American public as definitive (e.g. that allegations of voter fraud were inherently baseless and conspiratorial)
The writer of the article notes that then-President Trump commented on what had happened, and that indeed his assertions were “in a way” correct.
“To the President, something felt amiss. ‘It was all very, very strange,’ Trump said on Dec. 2. ‘Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted. In a way, Trump was right.”
To be clear, there is nothing inherently illegal or immoral about opposing a political candidate, especially one whom you believe is prone to corruption. There is also nothing inherently wrong with forming an alliance with like-minded people to achieve political goals that are important to you. For example, the individual credited as the “architect” of the campaign, AFL-CIO official Mike Podhorzer, has a long history of opposition to voter identification laws.
However, when an individual participating in the effort has a history of trying to unseat the legitimately elected president, their efforts become an object of suspicion. For example, the article features a quote by attorney Norm Eisen, who triumphantly exclaimed: “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation.”
The article tells us that Eisen “recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.” The VPP website states that he serves as “outside counsel.”
“I’d like to talk about one of the key figures in this operation, a nexus point not only between color revolutions overseas and the color revolution against Trump, but a nexus point between lawfare and mass mobilization, and so-called peaceful protests. This is a man by the name of Norm Eisen.”
Beattie described Eisen as “a key legal hatchet man.”
Eisen, said Beattie, “is also a key architect of nearly every effort to censor, sue, impeach and overthrow the President.
Beattie noted that Eisen authored “The Democracy Playbook” by Norm Eisen et al. (November 2019), a.k.a. “the Playbook,” effectively “a color revolution playbook.”
Beattie, in his interview with Carlson, provided numerous examples of Eisen’s lawfare against Trump. This “lawfare,” or the use of the legal system to achieve a political goal, is precisely what the Time article alludes to. Said Beattie:
“He’s [Eisen has] been behind over 180 lawsuits against Trump [true]. He authored 10 articles of impeachment before the president’s phone call [with Ukraine] was even made [true]. He was special counsel for Democrats for the impeachment process [true]. He was literally involved in every aspect of this color revolution against Trump.”
Indeed, in the liberal Jewish media at least, Eisen has been celebrated as a kind of hero for his ceaseless attacks on Trump. A September 2018 interview with Eisen in the Forward, a Jewish online publication, was titled: “Q&A: Norm Eisen Is Leading The Legal Charge Against Trump —And Bringing Prague’s 20th-Century To Life.”
Speaking with Carlson back in the fall of 2020, Beattie accurately predicted that Eisen would try to torpedo the November Presidential election:
“He was literally involved in every aspect of this color revolution against Trump,’ Beattle said, explaining that Eisen is going ‘to use lawfare in order to overturn the 2020 election.'”
“It’s literally these same people, who are color revolution professionals, who have a long history of using these same tactics against foreign leaders they don’t like, to use against Democratically elected President Donald Trump.”
Examples of U.S.-sponsored “color revolutions” aimed at regime change include Iraq (2005) and Ukraine (2014).
The Washington Post reported back on January 20, 2017—the day President Trump was inaugurated—-that the effort to impeach him started on the day of Inauguration itself.
We know that even before he won the election, even before the campaign itself was underway, Donald Trump’s was spied on, and his political opponent used her influence with the media to elevate and then crush him politically by destroying their credibility by framing the Republican Party as extremist. Once Trump became President, the effort continued, and the media willingly assisted this negative intervention in the democratic process.
I have my complaints about the former President’s strategy; I think he should have been more emphatic about decrying racism, for example. I think he should have been more respectful, as a rule.
But there is nothing objective or fact-based that explains how or why Trump has been publicly portrayed as a monstrous, Hitlerian racist, sexist/sexual predator, Jewish/Zionist “puppet,” greedy, grandiose, self-serving, mentally unstable, tyrannical fascist.
The only thing that comes to my mind is a deep-seated desire to remove the President from power, whether out of fear that he encourages anti-Semites, fear that he will take away the privileges enjoyed by the elite class, fear that organized criminality will no longer be protected, or some combination.
The people who have united against Donald Trump understand how to wield the justice system as a cudgel. They know how to protect themselves from prosecution. But in keeping to the letter of the law, they have deeply violated its spirit, and I believe they have irretrievably harmed America in the process.
Someone should be held to account for what happened as a result of this so-called “conspiracy.” Someone has to answer for building a narrative, on every level, that virtually guaranteed a massive public appetite for removing Trump from power. Someone has to answer for turning ordinary Americans into the “bogeyman,” with countless millions of citizens excised from their families, fired from their jobs, deplatformed from social media, and generally afraid to say a single wrong word lest the mob chase them down and even, God forbid, take their very lives..
One day, social scientists will study on an academic level how it was that the most evil of intentions was couched in the language of morality and protected by the justice system.
For now, what we need is an immediate, balanced, truly nonpartisan inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Presidential election of 2020.
It seems worth pointing out that on September 17, 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before Congress, and in that testimony that the FBI does not investigate belief systems unless they are associated with Federal crimes and violence, or the threat of violence.
The FBI does investigate voter fraud.
The focus right now should not be on a McCarthy-style “witch hunt” for people who espouse certain beliefs, but rather into settling the question of what happened on Election Day, and any obstruction of the results.
By Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are the author’s own. Public domain.