From the Brownstone Institute

By  Josh Stylman  

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

Josh Stylman

Joshua Stylman has been an entrepreneur and investor for over 30 years. For two decades, he focused on building and growing companies in the digital economy, co-founding and successfully exiting three businesses while investing in and mentoring dozens of technology startups. In 2014, seeking to create a meaningful impact in his local community, Stylman founded Threes Brewing, a craft brewery and hospitality company that became a beloved NYC institution. He served as CEO until 2022, stepping down after receiving backlash for speaking out against the city’s vaccine mandates. Today, Stylman lives in the Hudson Valley with his wife and children, where he balances family life with various business ventures and community engagement.

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

During a free-flowing press conference at Mar-a-Lago Monday, Donald Trump mentioned the sharp rise in autism in recent decades, adding that he has experts ‘looking to find out’ if vaccines may be the cause.

Donald Trump is doubling down on his intention to study a possible link between vaccines and autism in children.  

During a free-flowing press conference at Mar-a-Lago Monday, the incoming president said there are “problems” with the massive increase in autism cases in America over the past several decades and that he intends to get to the bottom of it. 

“30 years ago, we had, I’ve heard numbers like 1 in 200,000, 1 in 100,000. Now I’m hearing numbers like 1 in 100. So, something’s wrong … and we’re going to find out about it,” he said.  

Trump’s remarks come just days after he told MSNBC anchor Kristen Welker that his choice to lead the Heath and Human Services Department, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., will be tasked with investigating the matter.  

“Certain vaccines are incredible but maybe some aren’t, and if they aren’t, we have to find out … the drug companies are going to be working with RFK Jr,” he said. 

During COVID-19, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny joined a LifeSiteNews panel discussion on the science regarding the COVID shots. She warned that the experimental injections do not even qualify for the term “vaccine.”  

“I refuse to call it a vaccine because it doesn’t meet any of the standards by which a vaccine is supposed to work,” she said.  

In October 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) unanimously voted 15-0 to add COVID-19 shots to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules.  

Dr. Tenpenny warned about the dangers of the current vaccination schedule while attending the world premier of The Great Awakening documentary in June 2023.

“If a child gets all of the vaccines in the entire schedule, they get almost 13,000 micrograms of aluminum, and they get almost 600 micrograms of mercury, plus over 200 different chemicals,” she said. “So that’s why they’ve never been proven to be safe.” 

The upcoming 2025 Immunization Schedule approved by the CDC now recommends 36 vaccinations for children from the time they are in their mother’s womb until they are two years old (four doses are given to the pregnant mother while 32 doses are injected in the child from birth to 24 months).   

Dr. Simone Gold has called for an investigation into the current vaccination schedule.  

“In the 1960’s children received 5 vaccine shots in total. Today, the CDC says that children should receive 72 vaccine shots, a majority of them before the age of 6. The CDC is known for corruptly advancing Big Pharma interests. This schedule needs to be investigated further,” she said on X in September. 

The CDC currently advises children to receive 70 doses before they turn 18. This is a massive increase from the 1980s, when they received 24 doses. Many medical freedom activists blame the explosion in shots on the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which gave vaccine makers legal protection from any harm their products inflict on those who receive them. 

Doctors and medical freedom activists, including RFK Jr., have long maintained that the massive uptick in autism in recent decades is likely due to the increases in vaccines for children.