Brownstone Institute
Opponents coordinating campaign to discredit RFK Jr.
From the Brownstone Institute
I’m not suggesting we accept every contrarian position, but rather that institutional credibility must be earned through rigorous analysis rather than assumed through authority.
As I often do on Sunday mornings, I was drinking my coffee and scrolling through my news feed when I noticed something striking. Maybe it’s my algorithm, but the content was flooded with an unusual amount of vitriol directed at Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s nomination as HHS Secretary. The coordinated messaging was impossible to miss—talking heads across networks uniformly labeling him a “conspiracy theorist” and “danger to public health,” never once addressing his actual positions. The media’s concerted attacks on Kennedy reveal more than just their opinion of his nomination—they expose a deeper crisis of credibility within institutions that once commanded public trust.
The Credibility Paradox
The irony of who led these attacks wasn’t lost on me—these were largely the same voices who championed our most destructive pandemic policies. As Jeffrey Tucker aptly noted on X :
The Coordinated Response
This hypocrisy becomes even more glaring in the New York Times’ recent coverage, where dismissive rhetoric consistently replaces substantive engagement. In one piece, they acknowledge troubling trends in children’s health while dismissively declaring “vaccines and fluoride are not the cause” without engaging his evidence. In another, Zeynep Tufekci—who notably advocated for some of the most draconian Covid measures—warns that Kennedy could “destroy one of civilization’s best achievements,” painting apocalyptic scenarios while sidestepping his actual policy positions.
Meanwhile, their political desk speculates about how his stance on Big Food might “alienate his GOP allies.” Each piece approaches from a different angle, but the pattern is clear: coordinated messaging aimed at undermining his credibility before he can assume institutional authority.
The Echo Chamber Effect
You can almost hear the editorial conveyor belt opening as senior editors craft the day’s approved reality for their audience. The consistent tone across pieces reveals less independent analysis than a familiar pattern—mockingbird media still in action. As I detailed in How The Information Factory Evolved, this assembly-line approach to reality manufacturing has become increasingly visible to anyone paying attention.
What these gatekeepers fail to grasp is that this smug dismissiveness, this refusal to engage with substantive arguments, is precisely what fuels growing public skepticism. Their panic seems to grow in direct proportion to Kennedy’s proximity to real power. This orchestrated dismissal is more than a journalistic flaw—it reflects a larger institutional dilemma, one that becomes unavoidable as Kennedy gains traction.
The Institutional Trap
The Times faces an emerging dilemma: at some point, they’ll need to address the substance of Kennedy’s arguments rather than rely on dismissive characterizations—especially if he assumes control of America’s health apparatus. Just this morning, MSNBC anchors were literally shouting that “Kennedy is going to get people killed”—yet another example of using melodramatics and fear instead of engaging with his actual positions. Their reflexive ridicule strategy backfires precisely because it avoids engaging with the evidence and concerns that resonate with parents and citizens across political lines. Each attempt to maintain narrative control through authority rather than evidence accelerates institutional credibility collapse.
Beyond Kennedy: Redrawing Political Lines
The NYT’s analysis about Kennedy potentially alienating GOP allies particularly highlights their fundamental misunderstanding of the shifting political landscape. As a lifelong Democrat who still champions many traditional progressive values, Kennedy transcends conventional political boundaries. His message—”We have to love our children more than we hate each other”—resonates precisely because anyone who dismisses this crusade to restore American vitality as mere political theater is blind to the groundswell of people who’ve grown tired of watching their communities crumble under the weight of manufactured decline.
This isn’t just about Kennedy—it’s about the media’s inability to address the legitimate concerns of a disillusioned public. When institutions refuse to engage with dissenting voices, they deepen mistrust and fracture the shared foundation necessary for democratic discourse. While RFK, Jr.’s message has resonated across political boundaries, the media’s inability to address core issues—like regulatory failures—reveals just how out of touch they’ve become.
The Art of Missing the Point
Consider this fact-check from the same article: The Times attempts to discredit Kennedy’s Fruit Loops example, but inadvertently confirms his central point: ingredients banned in European markets are indeed permitted in American products. By focusing on semantic precision instead of the broader issue—why US regulators allow unsafe ingredients—the media deflects from substantive debates.
Senator Elizabeth Warren declared this week: “RFK Jr. poses a danger to public health, scientific research, medicine, and health care coverage for millions. He wants to stop parents from protecting their babies from measles and his ideas would welcome the return of polio.” Yet this alarmist framing dodges the simple question Kennedy actually raises: Why wouldn’t you want proper safety testing for chemicals we’re expected to inject into our children’s bodies? The silence in response to this basic inquiry speaks volumes about institutional priorities—and their fear of someone with the power to demand answers.
A Referendum on Manufacturing Consent
Say what you want about Trump, but his “fake news” remarks struck a chord that resonates deeper with each passing day. People who once scoffed at these claims are now watching with eyes wide open as coordinated narratives unfold across media platforms. The gaslighting has become too obvious to ignore. As I explored in We Didn’t Change, The Democratic Party Did, this awakening transcends traditional political boundaries. Americans across the spectrum are tired of being told not to believe their own eyes, whether it’s about pandemic policies, economic realities, or the suppression of dissenting voices.
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.
It was their final, most essential command.”
–George Orwell, 1984
The Moment of Truth
With Kennedy potentially overseeing America’s health infrastructure, media institutions face a crucial inflection point. Fear campaigns and ad hominem attacks won’t suffice when his policy positions require serious examination. The machinery of coordinated dismissal—visible in identical talking points across networks—reveals more about institutional allegiance than journalistic integrity.
This moment demands something different. When Kennedy raises questions about pharmaceutical safety testing or environmental toxins—issues that resonate with families across political lines—substantive debate must replace reflexive ridicule. His actual positions, heard directly rather than through media filters, often align with common-sense concerns about corporate influence on public health policy.
This institutional pattern of manufactured authority connects directly to themes I explored in Fiat Everything earlier this week—systems built on decree rather than demonstrated value. They don’t sell weapons—they sell fear. The same forces that control monetary policy now seek to dictate public health discourse.
Breaking the Machine
The solution won’t come from institutional gatekeepers (that’s what got us here) but direct examination. We all need to:
- Listen to Kennedy’s complete speeches rather than edited soundbites
- Read his policy positions rather than media characterizations
- Examine the evidence he cites rather than fact-checker summaries
- Consider why certain questions about public health policy are deemed off-limits
I’m not suggesting we accept every contrarian position, but rather that institutional credibility must be earned through rigorous analysis rather than assumed through authority. Until then, coverage like these recent Times pieces will continue to exemplify the very institutional failures that fuel the movements they seek to discredit. As Kennedy approaches real institutional power, expect these attacks to intensify—a clear signal of just how much the guardians of our manufactured consensus have to lose.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
By 
Anthony Fauci must be furious.
He spent years proudly being the public face of the country’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. He did, however, flip-flop on almost every major issue, seamlessly managing to shift his guidance based on current political whims and an enormous desire to coerce behavior.
Nowhere was this more obvious than his dictates on masks. If you recall, in February 2020, Fauci infamously stated on 60 Minutes that masks didn’t work. That they didn’t provide the protection people thought they did, there were gaps in the fit, and wearing masks could actually make things worse by encouraging wearers to touch their face.
Just a few months later, he did a 180, then backtracked by making up a post-hoc justification for his initial remarks. Laughably, Fauci said that he recommended against masks to protect supply for healthcare workers, as if hospitals would ever buy cloth masks on Amazon like the general public.
Later in interviews, he guaranteed that cities or states that listened to his advice would fare better than those that didn’t. Masks would limit Covid transmission so effectively, he believed, that it would be immediately obvious which states had mandates and which didn’t. It was obvious, but not in the way he expected.
And now, finally, after years of being proven wrong, the White House has officially and thoroughly rebuked Fauci in every conceivable way.
White House Covid Page Points Out Fauci’s Duplicitous Guidance
A new White House official page points out, in detail, exactly where Fauci and the public health expert class went wrong on Covid.
It starts by laying out the case for the lab-leak origin of the coronavirus, with explanations of how Fauci and his partners misled the public by obscuring information and evidence. How they used the “FOIA lady” to hide emails, used private communications to avoid scrutiny, and downplayed the conduct of EcoHealth Alliance because they helped fund it.
They roast the World Health Organization for caving to China and attempting to broaden its powers in the aftermath of “abject failure.”
“The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure because it caved to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties. Further, the WHO’s newest effort to solve the problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic — via a “Pandemic Treaty” — may harm the United States,” the site reads.
Social distancing is criticized, correctly pointing out that Fauci testified that there was no scientific data or evidence to support their specific recommendations.
“The ‘6 feet apart’ social distancing recommendation — which shut down schools and small business across the country — was arbitrary and not based on science. During closed door testimony, Dr. Fauci testified that the guidance ‘sort of just appeared.’”
There’s another section demolishing the extended lockdowns that came into effect in blue states like California, Illinois, and New York. Even the initial lockdown, the “15 Days to Slow the Spread,” was a poorly reasoned policy that had no chance of working; extended closures were immensely harmful with no demonstrable benefit.
“Prolonged lockdowns caused immeasurable harm to not only the American economy, but also to the mental and physical health of Americans, with a particularly negative effect on younger citizens. Rather than prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable populations, federal and state government policies forced millions of Americans to forgo crucial elements of a healthy and financially sound life,” it says.
Then there’s the good stuff: mask mandates. While there’s plenty more detail that could be added, it’s immensely rewarding to see, finally, the truth on an official White House website. Masks don’t work. There’s no evidence supporting mandates, and public health, especially Fauci, flip-flopped without supporting data.
“There was no conclusive evidence that masks effectively protected Americans from COVID-19. Public health officials flipped-flopped on the efficacy of masks without providing Americans scientific data — causing a massive uptick in public distrust.”
This is inarguably true. There were no new studies or data justifying the flip-flop, just wishful thinking and guessing based on results in Asia. It was an inexcusable, world-changing policy that had no basis in evidence, but was treated as equivalent to gospel truth by a willing media and left-wing politicians.
Over time, the CDC and Fauci relied on ridiculous “studies” that were quickly debunked, anecdotes, and ever-shifting goal posts. Wear one cloth mask turned to wear a surgical mask. That turned into “wear two masks,” then wear an N95, then wear two N95s.
All the while ignoring that jurisdictions that tried “high-quality” mask mandates also failed in spectacular fashion.
And that the only high-quality evidence review on masking confirmed no masks worked, even N95s, to prevent Covid transmission, as well as hearing that the CDC knew masks didn’t work anyway.
The website ends with a complete and thorough rebuke of the public health establishment and the Biden administration’s disastrous efforts to censor those who disagreed.
“Public health officials often mislead the American people through conflicting messaging, knee-jerk reactions, and a lack of transparency. Most egregiously, the federal government demonized alternative treatments and disfavored narratives, such as the lab-leak theory, in a shameful effort to coerce and control the American people’s health decisions.
When those efforts failed, the Biden Administration resorted to ‘outright censorship—coercing and colluding with the world’s largest social media companies to censor all COVID-19-related dissent.’”
About time these truths are acknowledged in a public, authoritative manner. Masks don’t work. Lockdowns don’t work. Fauci lied and helped cover up damning evidence.
If only this website had been available years ago.
Though, of course, knowing the media’s political beliefs, they’d have ignored it then, too.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
Brownstone Institute
RCMP seem more interested in House of Commons Pages than MP’s suspected of colluding with China
From the Brownstone Institute
Canadians shouldn’t have information about their wayward MPs, but the RCMP can’t have too much biometric information about regular people. It’s always a good time for a little fishing. Let’s run those prints, shall we?
Forget the members of Parliament who may have colluded with foreign governments. The real menace, the RCMP seem to think, are House of Commons pages. MPs suspected of foreign election interference should not be identified, the Mounties have insisted, but House of Commons staff must be fingerprinted. Serious threats to the country are hidden away, while innocent people are subjected to state surveillance. If you want to see how the managerial state (dys)functions, Canada is the place to be.
In June, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) tabled its redacted report that suggested at least 11 sitting MPs may have benefitted from foreign election interference. RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme cautioned against releasing their identities. Canadians remained in the dark until Oct. 28 when Kevin Vuong, a former Liberal MP now sitting as an Independent, hosted a news conference to suggest who some of the parliamentarians may be. Like the RCMP, most of the country’s media didn’t seem interested.
But the RCMP are very interested in certain other things. For years, they have pushed for the federal civil service to be fingerprinted. Not just high security clearance for top-secret stuff, but across government departments. The Treasury Board adopted the standard in 2014 and the House of Commons currently requires fingerprinting for staff hired since 2017. The Senate implemented fingerprinting this year. The RCMP have claimed that the old policy of doing criminal background checks by name is obsolete and too expensive.
But stated rationales are rarely the real ones. Name-based background checks are not obsolete or expensive. Numerous police departments continue to use them. They do so, in part, because name checks do not compromise biometric privacy. Fingerprints are a form of biometric data, as unique as your DNA. Under the federal Identification of Criminals Act, you must be in custody and charged with a serious offence before law enforcement can take your prints. Canadians shouldn’t have information about their wayward MPs, but the RCMP can’t have too much biometric information about regular people. It’s always a good time for a little fishing. Let’s run those prints, shall we?
It’s designed to seem like a small deal. If House of Commons staff must give their fingerprints, that’s just a requirement of the job. Managerial bureaucracies prefer not to coerce directly but to create requirements that are “choices.” Fingerprints aren’t mandatory. You can choose to provide them or choose not to work on the Hill.
Sound familiar? That’s the way Covid vaccine mandates worked too. Vaccines were never mandatory. There were no fines or prison terms. But the alternative was to lose your job, social life, or ability to visit a dying parent. When the state controls everything, it doesn’t always need to dictate. Instead, it provides unpalatable choices and raises the stakes so that people choose correctly.
Government intrudes incrementally. Digital ID, for instance, will be offered as a convenient choice. You can, if you wish, carry your papers in the form of a QR code on your phone. Voluntary, of course. But later there will be extra hoops to jump through to apply for a driver’s licence or health card in the old form.
Eventually, analogue ID will cost more, because, after all, digital ID is more automated and cheaper to run. Some outlets will not recognize plastic identification. Eventually, the government will offer only digital ID. The old way will be discarded as antiquated and too expensive to maintain. The new regime will provide the capacity to keep tabs on people like never before. Privacy will be compromised without debate. The bureaucracy will change the landscape in the guise of practicality, convenience, and cost.
Each new round of procedures and requirements is only slightly more invasive than the last. But turn around and find you have travelled a long way from where you began. Eventually, people will need digital ID, fingerprints, DNA, vaccine records, and social credit scores to be employed. It’s not coercive, just required for the job.
Occasionally the curtain is pulled back. The federal government unleashed the Emergencies Act on the truckers and their supporters in February 2022. Jackboots in riot gear took down peaceful protesters for objecting to government policy. Authorities revealed their contempt for law-abiding but argumentative citizens. For an honest moment, the government was not incremental and insidious, but enraged and direct. When they come after you in the streets with batons, at least you can see what’s happening.
We still don’t know who colluded with China. But we can be confident that House of Commons staffers aren’t wanted for murder. The RCMP has fingerprints to prove it. Controlling the people and shielding the powerful are mandates of the modern managerial state.
Republished from the Epoch Times
Anti-Trump protests planned across the country on Saturday as LA violence continues
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview
Audit report reveals Canada’s controversial COVID travel app violated multiple rules
