Up next we have the Washington Post, which sent Fauci's underlings a request for comment on the Great Barrington Declaration.
The message didn't make it to Fauci in time for the story though, which ran on the 16th. By the time his chief of staff got it on the 18th it was already out.
Keep in mind that Fauci was away for an unspecified reason on 10/16 that was redacted from the emails.
Fauci reemerges on the 18th though to request intel on the task force meeting he missed from Collins.
Collins replies that the GBD did not come up, and Atlas was away too. This prompts Fauci to relay Birx's disdain for Atlas.
Collins chimes in again on 10/20, not so much on the GBD itself but to relay gossip about Sunetra Gupta's ex-husband.
There's another gap in the email chain after 10/20, but in the meantime Fauci appears to have tasked his chief of staff Greg Folkers with assembling a list of talking points against the Great Barrington Declaration.
Folkers replies on 11/2/20 with the list for the task "as discussed."
But it is not a list of scientific papers to counter the GBD group's arguments. Instead, it is a list of even more political op-eds attacking the GBD.
Which op-eds did Fauci use to make his case? I have the answer and will reveal in the coming days.
But most are not even from credentialed scientists, and the few that are come from ideological lockdowners who all happened to agree w Fauci before the GBD.
Stay tuned for more!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I genuinely believe that Bessent is one of the leveler heads in a White House that's stocked full of protectionist crackpots. That said, he still grossly misunderstands tariffs, as per his piece in today's WSJ.🧵
Case in point here. He starts by arguing that tariffs are a negotiating tool to "reduce trade barriers in other countries."
Yet how is the Trump admin's track record going? Quite simply, the negotiations have failed on every count. We now have retaliatory trade wars all over the globe. Trump expended his negotiating capital in Feb/Mar with on-again, off-again tariffs to the point nobody trusts him.
Marxists: You can't use GDP to show prosperity because it's just a construct of the neoclassical paradigm to reinforce capitalist power disparities.
Also Marxists: Rising inequality proves that capitalism is failing, as per Piketty's stats...which use GDP as their denominator.
Marxists: Capitalism is responsible for climate change, colonialism, slavery, the bubonic plague, and every other disaster and death in human history.
Also Marxists: You can't fault Marxism for the atrocities of explicitly-Marxist states. Those weren't real Marxism.
Marxists: Economists are afraid of Marx and therefore refuse to read him.
Also Marxists: Every economist who reads Marx and methodically rebuts Marx's economic theories is really just part of a neoclassical conspiracy to uphold their own power relationships and capitalism.
Tariffs are extremely unpopular with the American public (61% view them as harmful) and are uniformly opposed by economists. So why are we pursuing a trade war?
A. Trump stacked his economic team with fanatical band of Tariff Fundamentalist crackpots who support them anyway.
Unlike most tariffs in the receng past, there isn't even a strong lobbyist push behind these ones. Lobbyists usually try to carve out tariffs for specific goods or industries, not impose them on entire countries. That suggests the source of the current tariffs is ideological.
And what are the ideologies? Well, Trump is pro-tariff but with a shallow understanding of how tariffs work. As a result, you get about 5-6 different competing rationales for tariffs that also conflict with each other. Hence the see-saw effect we've seen since February.
It's rooted in a bizarre rehabilitation of the economic philosophy of 19th century Sen. Henry Clay, a large slaveholder from Kentucky who believed that the role of the federal government was to centrally plan the national economy, all fueled by debt finance and a National Bank
When Clay laid out his agenda in a speech in 1824, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were still alive. They were both aghast at what they read, and believed that Clay's agenda was a full-fledged assault on the US Constitution.
This exact same pattern may be found for almost every trendy jargon term from academia.
It starts as an obscure proprietary concept on the Marxist far-left fringes of the professoriate. Then from about 2015 onward, it's everywhere.
Two simultaneous trends explain why:
1. Starting around 2000, the academy shifted hard-left. With this shift, low-rigor ideological dreck from the Critical Theory fringe became the dominant perspective.
2. Journalism followed academia in adopting & promoting the same concepts.
Related example: the sudden "discovery" of misinformation/disinformation around 2016.
Both terms existed before then, but the academic left and elite journalism settled on them as a tactic to describe and discredit any/all dissenting arguments..
Academic leftists: "The reason academia skews left is because we do better research & reality has a left wing bias!"
Also academic leftists: "Here's my CV. I mainly do postcolonial ethnographies of how neoliberal capitalism oppresses indigenous Marxist sex workers in Greenland."
Academic leftists: "Our department won't hire anyone on the right because their research isn't good enough, according to us."
Also academic leftists: "Here's my CV. I mainly write Marxist cat poetry using a critical theory lens. Sometimes my cat is credited as the coauthor."
Academic leftists: "Our department only has leftist students because applicants on the right aren't good enough."
Also academic leftists: "Here's our admissions app. You will be evaluated mainly on whether your DEI statement agrees with intersectional critical theory."