Brownstone Institute
Three Books to End the Silence
From the Brownstone Institute
My first thought upon reading it was: I cannot believe that this was allowed to be published! That’s the interesting part. Despite every attempt by the national security state and the vast army of censorial bureaucrats, we still have enough freedom to get the word out, for now.
Think of this. In the time since the Covid crisis has passed, no aspect of any federal power that was deployed to wreck a functioning society has been repealed. Not one law, regulation, edict, or power.
Some courts have struck down certain bureaucratic practices, such as the nationwide mask mandate and the eviction moratorium, which were, respectively, huge attacks on bodily autonomy and property rights. Those were ruled inadmissible, at tremendous expense to plaintiffs.
Otherwise, the bureaucracy has not budged an inch.
At the onset of this disaster, the CDC started simply posting edicts. They started with washing hands and staying home if you were sick. Quickly, they got carried away. Every business needed stay-at-home policies, canceled meetings, posted signs warning of omnipresent danger, sanitizer stations everywhere, no sharing of pens and scissors, plus Plexiglas everywhere.
Any CDC bureaucrat with logins could add a point of “guidance” but for most people, they were law. What a rush for the rulemakers! The edicts were passed on to state health departments, which sent them to counties, and they landed in HR departments in every company. For practical purposes, these were law to most people, because the consequences of disobeying were essentially unknown.
What about now? The CDC simply deleted its webpage. No apologies, no repeals, no reforms, just a delete button. It was there then it was gone.
When first issued it looked like this. A year later, it became a vast machinery of control, as you can see here. With each new update, the screws tightened. (Someone could have a great time parsing every word of every iteration and documenting it.)
Complying with everything would require vast expenditure and a crazed kabuki dance of extreme germophobia, such that it is hard to see how business could get done at all. Every sentence talks of guidance and advice but none cites “science” much less any authority for how any of this was legal. And yet millions of businesses either shut forever or experienced massive financial stress, which hurt everyone. Of course some enterprises thrived: those lucky enough to be considered “essential” and received the bulk of federal funding!
It’s more than obvious that we cannot depend on the federal government to get us to the truth about what happened. Vast amount of content on Brownstone.org explores this daily. In addition there are three books that everyone needs to digest now to get a full sense of the whole. There was much more going on that simple bureaucratic incompetence.
Our Enemy, the Government by Ramesh Thakur is the most scientifically sophisticated and yet accessible account of the amazing screw-ups of public health during this period. Keep in mind that the policy response was mostly the same all over the world but for a few nations. Thakur’s focus is on Australia but people in every nation will recognize the pattern. Each chapter takes on a new element, from the wild exaggeration of the universal threat of Covid, to the faulty testing regime, to the death misclassifications, to the spending mania, to the flurry of insane edicts on masking, vaccination, and forced human separation. It’s a tour de force for the ages, and leaves a devastating impression.
Keep in mind that Thakur is not just some writer. He was once the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations under Kofi Annan in addition to being a famed scholar. He has risked everything in writing this book but once he started peeling away at the onion that is the Covid response, he simply could not stop. He had to do the right thing and go the full way. The book is overwhelming in terms of charts, data, evidence, and citations but this is what is necessary to smash the paradigm. His main concern is the health and well-being of the human population. It was this that was wrecked over three years.
Next comes Rand Paul’s Deception. Throughout these awful years, Senator Paul has been an absolute godsend, and for two reasons. He is a medical doctor and extremely smart, so he was never intimidated by Anthony Fauci’s pseudoscientific gobbledygook. He saw right through the guy from the very beginning.
Crucially, as a US Senator, he had unusual access to Fauci that enabled him to question him directly. This is something that Fauci had tried to avoid from the beginning. We know from his email and scheduling that Fauci was extremely careful through the whole period to grant only friendly interviews on captured venues. This was a main objective, and precisely why he got away with it. But with Rand in the Senate, he was entitled to a limited amount of time to ask questions. He used every minute well. The results are gold.
His book is the full account of how Fauci worked from day one to avoid any culpability for the funding of the Wuhan lab through third parties that might have been responsible for the leak of the virus. The book, then, reveals the scandal of the century. Fauci has been enormously powerful, controlling billions in grant funding. He deployed all his power, money, and connections to avoid his direct professional responsibilities and scrub his record to make himself unaccountable. Rand has all the receipts, and bravely presents them in this important book.
To deepen the plot, we have The Wuhan Coverup by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This is a much more focused and tighter work than his previous book on Fauci. I swear that anyone who grabs it and reads it will never think about government the same way. It’s that powerful and comprehensive. At issue for Kennedy is the US bioweapons program that began after the Second World War and continues to this day. It is responsible for vast corruption, the empowerment and entanglement of pharmaceutical companies, and the use of secretive classification powers to keep the American people in the dark.
If you suspected that the national security apparatus had some role in the pandemic response, you would be correct about that. This book is the one that has gone further than any other to document this scary reality. The Department of Defense and the CIA had a huge role in making rules for the rest of the population to prepare the way for the presumed antidote that was rolled out with tax funding and legal indemnification against harms, by companies that owned the patents and had publicly traded stocks you could buy. Nothing about this whole machinery has anything to do with things like freedom and democracy but there it is, malicious corporatism in a nutshell.
RFK has laid it all out in eye-popping page after page. My first thought upon reading it was: I cannot believe that this was allowed to be published! That’s the interesting part. Despite every attempt by the national security state and the vast army of censorial bureaucrats, we still have enough freedom to get the word out, for now. This is why it is so important to get this book now and digest its contents. There could come a time when we won’t be allowed to read such things. That is clearly the ambition in any case.
Did the pandemic response affect your life? Your kids? Your community? Yes, and profoundly. As a citizen you have every reason to care about how and why terrible things were done to us.
It’s not enough just to forget the whole thing like a bad dream. We cannot just delete the page from the history books, as the CDC has done, and pretend like it is over and done and nothing needs to change. We must deal with reality. And these books take us to new levels of understanding. That is the first step toward change.
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
By 
Who Controls the Administrative State?
President Trump on March 20, 2025, ordered the following: “The Secretary of Education shall, to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”
That is interesting language: to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” is not the same as closing it. And what is “permitted by law” is precisely what is in dispute.
It is meant to feel like abolition, and the media reported it as such, but it is not even close. This is not Trump’s fault. The supposed authoritarian has his hands tied in many directions, even over agencies he supposedly controls, the actions of which he must ultimately bear responsibility.
The Department of Education is an executive agency, created by Congress in 1979. Trump wants it gone forever. So do his voters. Can he do that? No but can he destaff the place and scatter its functions? No one knows for sure. Who decides? Presumably the highest court, eventually.
How this is decided – whether the president is actually in charge or really just a symbolic figure like the King of Sweden – affects not just this one destructive agency but hundreds more. Indeed, the fate of the whole of freedom and functioning of constitutional republics may depend on the answer.
All burning questions of politics today turn on who or what is in charge of the administrative state. No one knows the answer and this is for a reason. The main functioning of the modern state falls to a beast that does not exist in the Constitution.
The public mind has never had great love for bureaucracies. Consistent with Max Weber’s worry, they have put society in an impenetrable “iron cage” built of bloodless rationalism, needling edicts, corporatist corruption, and never-ending empire-building checked by neither budgetary restraint nor plebiscite.
Today’s full consciousness of the authority and ubiquity of the administrative state is rather new. The term itself is a mouthful and doesn’t come close to describing the breadth and depth of the problem, including its root systems and retail branches. The new awareness is that neither the people nor their elected representatives are really in charge of the regime under which we live, which betrays the whole political promise of the Enlightenment.
This dawning awareness is probably 100 years late. The machinery of what is popularly known as the “deep state” – I’ve argued there are deep, middle, and shallow layers – has been growing in the US since the inception of the civil service in 1883 and thoroughly entrenched over two world wars and countless crises at home and abroad.
The edifice of compulsion and control is indescribably huge. No one can agree precisely on how many agencies there are or how many people work for them, much less how many institutions and individuals work on contract for them, either directly or indirectly. And that is just the public face; the subterranean branch is far more elusive.
The revolt against them all came with the Covid controls, when everyone was surrounded on all sides by forces outside our purview and about which the politicians knew not much at all. Then those same institutional forces appear to be involved in overturning the rule of a very popular politician whom they tried to stop from gaining a second term.
The combination of this series of outrages – what Jefferson in his Declaration called “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object” – has led to a torrent of awareness. This has translated into political action.
A distinguishing mark of Trump’s second term has been an optically concerted effort, at least initially, to take control of and then curb administrative state power, more so than any executive in living memory. At every step in these efforts, there has been some barrier, even many on all sides.
There are at least 100 legal challenges making their way through courts. District judges are striking down Trump’s ability to fire workers, redirect funding, curb responsibilities, and otherwise change the way they do business.
Even the signature early achievement of DOGE – the shuttering of USAID – has been stopped by a judge with an attempt to reverse it. A judge has even dared tell the Trump administration who it can and cannot hire at USAID.
Not a day goes by when the New York Times does not manufacture some maudlin defense of the put-upon minions of the tax-funded managerial class. In this worldview, the agencies are always right, whereas any elected or appointed person seeking to rein them in or terminate them is attacking the public interest.
After all, as it turns out, legacy media and the administrative state have worked together for at least a century to cobble together what was conventionally called “the news.” Where would the NYT or the whole legacy media otherwise be?
So ferocious has been the pushback against even the paltry successes and often cosmetic reforms of MAGA/MAHA/DOGE that vigilantes have engaged in terrorism against Teslas and their owners. Not even returning astronauts from being “lost in space” has redeemed Elon Musk from the wrath of the ruling class. Hating him and his companies is the “new thing” for NPCs, on a long list that began with masks, shots, supporting Ukraine, and surgical rights for gender dysphoria.
What is really at stake, more so than any issue in American life (and this applies to states around the world) – far more than any ideological battles over left and right, red and blue, or race and class – is the status, power, and security of the administrative state itself and all its works.
We claim to support democracy yet all the while, empires of command-and-control have arisen among us. The victims have only one mechanism available to fight back: the vote. Can that work? We do not yet know. This question will likely be decided by the highest court.
All of which is awkward. It is impossible to get around this US government organizational chart. All but a handful of agencies live under the category of the executive branch. Article 2, Section 1, says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Does the president control the whole of the executive branch in a meaningful way? One would think so. It’s impossible to understand how it could be otherwise. The chief executive is…the chief executive. He is held responsible for what these agencies do – we certainly blasted away at the Trump administration in the first term for everything that happened under his watch. In that case, and if the buck really does stop at the Oval Office desk, the president must have some modicum of control beyond the ability to tag a marionette to get the best parking spot at the agency.
What is the alternative to presidential oversight and management of the agencies listed in this branch of government? They run themselves? That claim means nothing in practice.
For an agency to be deemed “independent” turns out to mean codependency with the industries regulated, subsidized, penalized, or otherwise impacted by its operations. HUD does housing development, FDA does pharmaceuticals, DOA does farming, DOL does unions, DOE does oil and turbines, DOD does tanks and bombs, FAA does airlines, and so on It goes forever.
That’s what “independence” means in practice: total acquiescence to industrial cartels, trade groups, and behind-the-scenes systems of payola, blackmail, and graft, while the powerless among the people live with the results. This much we have learned and cannot unlearn.
That is precisely the problem that cries out for a solution. The solution of elections seems reasonable only if the people we elected actually have the authority over the thing they seek to reform.
There are criticisms of the idea of executive control of executive agencies, which is really nothing other than the system the Founders established.
First, conceding more power to the president raises fears that he will behave like a dictator, a fear that is legitimate. Partisan supporters of Trump won’t be happy when the precedent is cited to reverse Trump’s political priorities and the agencies turn on red-state voters in revenge.
That problem is solved by dismantling agency power itself, which, interestingly, is mostly what Trump’s executive orders have sought to achieve and which the courts and media have worked to stop.
Second, one worries about the return of the “spoils system,” the supposedly corrupt system by which the president hands out favors to friends in the form of emoluments, a practice the establishment of the civil service was supposed to stop.
In reality, the new system of the early 20th century fixed nothing but only added another layer, a permanent ruling class to participate more fully in a new type of spoils system that operated now under the cloak of science and efficiency.
Honestly, can we really compare the petty thievery of Tammany Hall to the global depredations of USAID?
Third, it is said that presidential control of agencies threatens to erode checks and balances. The obvious response is the organizational chart above. That happened long ago as Congress created and funded agency after agency from the Wilson to the Biden administration, all under executive control.
Congress perhaps wanted the administrative state to be an unannounced and unaccountable fourth branch, but nothing in the founding documents created or imagined such a thing.
If you are worried about being dominated and destroyed by a ravenous beast, the best approach is not to adopt one, feed it to adulthood, train it to attack and eat people, and then unleash it.
The Covid years taught us to fear the power of the agencies and those who control them not just nationally but globally. The question now is two-fold: what can be done about it and how to get from here to there?
Trump’s executive order on the Department of Education illustrates the point precisely. His administration is so uncertain of what it does and can control, even of agencies that are wholly executive agencies, listed clearly under the heading of executive agencies, that it has to dodge and weave practical and legal barriers and land mines, even in its own supposed executive pronouncements, even to urge what might amount to be minor reforms.
Whoever is in charge of such a system, it is clearly not the people.
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
What War Means
My mother once told me how my father still woke up screaming in the night years after I was born, decades after the Second World War (WWII) ended. I had not known – probably like most children of those who fought. For him, it was visions of his friends going down in burning aircraft – other bombers of his squadron off north Australia – and to be helpless, watching, as they burnt and fell. Few born after that war could really appreciate what their fathers, and mothers, went through.
Early in the movie Saving Private Ryan, there is an extended D-Day scene of the front doors of the landing craft opening on the Normandy beaches, and all those inside being torn apart by bullets. It happens to one landing craft after another. Bankers, teachers, students, and farmers being ripped in pieces and their guts spilling out whilst they, still alive, call for help that cannot come. That is what happens when a machine gun opens up through the open door of a landing craft, or an armored personnel carrier, of a group sent to secure a tree line.
It is what a lot of politicians are calling for now.
People with shares in the arms industry become a little richer every time one of those shells is fired and has to be replaced. They gain financially, and often politically, from bodies being ripped open. This is what we call war. It is increasingly popular as a political strategy, though generally for others and the children of others.
Of course, the effects of war go beyond the dismembering and lonely death of many of those fighting. Massacres of civilians and rape of women can become common, as brutality enables humans to be seen as unwanted objects. If all this sounds abstract, apply it to your loved ones and think what that would mean.
I believe there can be just wars, and this is not a discussion about the evil of war, or who is right or wrong in current wars. Just a recognition that war is something worth avoiding, despite its apparent popularity amongst many leaders and our media.
The EU Reverses Its Focus
When the Brexit vote determined that Britain would leave the European Union (EU), I, like many, despaired. We should learn from history, and the EU’s existence had coincided with the longest period of peace between Western European States in well over 2,000 years.
Leaving the EU seemed to be risking this success. Surely, it is better to work together, to talk and cooperate with old enemies, in a constructive way? The media, and the political left, center, and much of the right seemed at that time, all of nine years ago, to agree. Or so the story went.
We now face a new reality as the EU leadership scrambles to justify continuing a war. Not only continuing, but they had been staunchly refusing to even countenance discussion on ending the killing. It has taken a new regime from across the ocean, a subject of European mockery, to do that.
In Europe, and in parts of American politics, something is going on that is very different from the question of whether current wars are just or unjust. It is an apparent belief that advocacy for continued war is virtuous. Talking to leaders of an opposing country in a war that is killing Europeans by the tens of thousands has been seen as traitorous. Those proposing to view the issues from both sides are somehow “far right.”
The EU, once intended as an instrument to end war, now has a European rearmament strategy. The irony seems lost on both its leaders and its media. Arguments such as “peace through strength” are pathetic when accompanied by censorship, propaganda, and a refusal to talk.
As US Vice-President JD Vance recently asked European leaders, what values are they actually defending?
Europe’s Need for Outside Help
A lack of experience of war does not seem sufficient to explain the current enthusiasm to continue them. Architects of WWII in Europe had certainly experienced the carnage of the First World War. Apart from the financial incentives that human slaughter can bring, there are also political ideologies that enable the mass death of others to be turned into an abstract and even positive idea.
Those dying must be seen to be from a different class, of different intelligence, or otherwise justifiable fodder to feed the cause of the Rules-Based Order or whatever other slogan can distinguish an ‘us’ from a ‘them’…While the current incarnation seems more of a class thing than a geographical or nationalistic one, European history is ripe with variations of both.
Europe appears to be back where it used to be, the aristocracy burning the serfs when not visiting each other’s clubs. Shallow thinking has the day, and the media have adapted themselves accordingly. Democracy means ensuring that only the right people get into power.
Dismembered European corpses and terrorized children are just part of maintaining this ideological purity. War is acceptable once more. Let’s hope such leaders and ideologies can be sidelined by those beyond Europe who are willing to give peace a chance.
There is no virtue in the promotion of mass death. Europe, with its leadership, will benefit from outside help and basic education. It would benefit even further from leadership that values the lives of its people.
Author
Massive new study links COVID jabs to higher risk of myocarditis, stroke, artery disease
Conservative Party urges investigation into Carney plan to spend $1 billion on heat pumps
Mark Carney To Ban Free Speech if Elected
Expert Medical Record Reviews Of The Two Girls In Texas Who Purportedly Died of Measles
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoRCMP Whistleblowers Accuse Members of Mark Carney’s Inner Circle of Security Breaches and Surveillance
-
Autism2 days agoAutism Rates Reach Unprecedented Highs: 1 in 12 Boys at Age 4 in California, 1 in 31 Nationally
-
Health2 days agoTrump admin directs NIH to study ‘regret and detransition’ after chemical, surgical gender transitioning
-
Also Interesting1 day agoBetFury Review: Is It the Best Crypto Casino?
-
Autism1 day agoRFK Jr. Exposes a Chilling New Autism Reality
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoAI-Driven Election Interference from China, Russia, and Iran Expected, Canadian Security Officials Warn
-
Bjorn Lomborg2 days agoGlobal Warming Policies Hurt the Poor
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoBureau Exclusive: Chinese Election Interference Network Tied to Senate Breach Investigation