Last December, I released a FOIA'd email to the world, showing that Francis Collins ordered Anthony Fauci to wage a "devastating take down" on the Great Barrington Declaration.
A year later, Fauci is apparently lying under oath, denying he ever did this
The email records reveal a different story. Fauci immediately responded to Collins by circulating an opinion article from Wired Magazine that - absurdly - claimed the lockdowns were behind us.
Fauci then circulated another opinion column from the Nation magazine by radical lockdowner Gregg Gonsalves, attacking the GBD.
Collins then repeated these anti-GBD talking points to the Washington Post, declaring that the proposal was "fringe" and "dangerous."
Fauci responded to Collins the same day, saying "what you said is entirely correct."
At some point around October 14, 2020, Fauci and Collins had a long email exchange about the Great Barrington Declaration. We still don't know what's in it because the NIH completely redacted the multi-page email.
We know that later that day, Fauci sent another email to Collins and his staff likening the GBD to "AIDS denialism"
Two days later on October 16, 2020, Fauci was in full panic mode. He sent Deborah Birx an email about how he had "come out very strongly publicly against" the GBD, and warning her that Scott Atlas would likely push for it at the Covid task force meeting later that week.
Fauci had to miss that task force meeting so he was setting Birx up to oppose the GBD if it came up. Note that significant parts of this email are also redacted, so we don't know what else they said. Birx responded though that the message was received.
Atlas did not attend the meeting as Fauci feared he would, so the proposal to discuss the GBD never came up. Fauci & Collins bantered about being relieved over this in their next few emails.
A few days later, Fauci asked his assistant Greg Folkers to round up a bunch of media op-eds attacking the GBD. Folkers delivered these to him on November 2, 2020.
The FOIA records, unfortunately, stop there, and the NIH has not responded to followup requests for additional public records about this from Fauci in almost a year. That will likely change soon though when the ongoing Missouri lawsuit gets to the discovery phase.
For a full summary of these events and links to all of the original FOIA'd emails, see here:
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."