Dissident Mutiny?

What Should It Look Like if We’re Forced to by “Official Conservativism’s” Inaction on the Covid-Vax?

Mutiny

In my latest essay on the “conservative” suppression of the widespread covid-vax harms story, I made two key points about the possibility of it continuing past 2025.

First, that dark possibility is unlikely. Trump is seeking to appoint Kennedy as Secretary of HHS, and even if that winds up defeated, he is likely still going to seek, in accordance with his “MAHA promises,” to appoint a like-minded person, and to pursue Kennedy-influenced policies. That has to mean that the key agencies will soon be forced to release key data sets, and conduct key research, which will establish the fact, and this time right before the public’s eye, that these experimental injections are extremely dangerous. The suppression will fall apart.

Second, that dark possibility is intolerable. While conservatives can have legitimate disagreements amongst themselves about the degree of misdirection acceptable in the rhetoric used by our leaders, what is being contemplated in an extended suppression is out of all bounds, being only comparable to some of the most evil instances of coordinated mendacity in history, such as the decades-long suppression by the Western press of Stalin’s Holodomor famine.

But alas, my essay could not rule that dark possibility out,¹ and took some time to describe its consequences in terms of Moral Calamity for conservatism and of Spiritual Enslavement for those leaders who commit the deed.

And I did point to a lesser consequence which would also unfold: the abandonment of official conservatism by myself and many like me. That’s what I want to talk about today.

As “abandonment” has too surrendering of a feel, perhaps Dr. Joseph Sansone hit upon the better term, “mutiny,” in his recent must-hear conversation with Covid-vax-harm researcher Nicholas Hulscher, MPH. This is from about 26:00 in the video:

Hulscher: Hopefully, our new administration will start to address these things.

Sansone: Hopefully, but you know, but I’ve given up on hope before--I prefer action. My logic is that you have to put more pressure on your side than you do the other side, because your side might actually listen. And I don’t think anyone should give them a pass. Because honestly, from my perspective, every day that President Trump is in in office, and the mRNA injections are on the market, he’s complicit. I don’t think there’s any plausible deniability for any of them at this point. There’s just too much evidence to that--even if you don’t think it’s a deliberate weapon, once you know it’s harmful and you continue to distribute it, now you’ve weaponized it. …My prediction is if these mRNA injections are not off the market in, like, three to six months he’s going to have a mutiny, because he’s a lame duck anyway. I don’t think people are going to fall in line, because he’s only got a four-year term.

Hulscher: If these injections are not removed shortly after inauguration, then we know that they’re still compromised by the bio-pharmaceutical complex. We’ll know that they’re still corrupt. You’re right, because there’s over 3,000 studies now…

You should definitely listen to Hulscher on those studies, but let’s focus here on what the more politically minded Sansone said. He’s correct in thinking the proper judgment period here could be as long as six months, in that it’d be fair for the Trump camp to want time for getting their sea-legs, for getting real control over the agencies, etc., though he’s errant to predict that Trump’s political clout will be as weak as that of a typical second-term president, and that for that reason and others, a political “mutiny” against him for not acting against the covid-vaxxes would be an automatic thing. Sansone hasn’t probed the stonewall of the conservative leaders on this issue as carefully as I have.² He seems similarly not to have noticed the sorry compliance with it by most of the conservative base. So unlike him, I expect any GOP-shaking protest directed against its continuing the suppression--if God forbid that is what its leaders choose--would be very hard to pull off. At least in the immediate-term.

That said, “mutiny” is a good term! It carries more of the needed sense of a decisive-break and rebellion than terms like “fundamental protest,” “secession” or “party-split” can. It admits the fact that it would, in political terms, be a fight to the death, though again, the way Sansone uses it here does not admit that the dissidents would likely lose the initial fights. We would not be able to seize the ship. We would not be met with offers of workable compromise, but rather, a storm of character-assassination attempts. For we dissidents would be calling for the outright replacement of 90% of present conservative leaders—any not clearly and apologetically recanting on this issue would, if things had gotten to this point, have to go.

Of course, even here, I’m speaking with more confidence about what could or should happen than is appropriate. I had to say something to correct Sansone’s suggestion that a mutiny would be easy, but overall, I’m just at the beginning stages of imagining what it would it look like.

To my fellow conservative dissidents, I say it is our duty, and especially in this season, to begin imagining, and out loud, what our mutiny would be. So if you are among such, can you help me? Do you have suggestions? Can you provide answers to the following? Again, the scenario envisioned in each of these questions is one in which official conservatism has decided to continue the suppression of the story.

18 Questions

First, should the dissident mutiny from official conservativism demand an end to all financial support, including subscriptions, and including regular linking to, the conservative organizations and publications guilty of suppression?

Second, should dissident conservative speakers and writers promise to never contribute to the publications and events of such organizations, except in those instances where they are permitted to voice open denunciations of those organizations’ continued suppression?

Third, should dissident conservatives agree to boycott (i.e., end any public promotion or support of) all writers, experts, and scholars who continue to work with and for these organizations?

Fourth, should the same apply to the organizations behind, and the writers who work with, the politicians, elected or seeking election, who continue to participate in the suppression?

Fifth, should dissident conservatives seek to oppose such politicians in GOP primaries?

Sixth, should dissident conservatives seek to vote against any front-runner GOP politician whenever they support the suppression, even when there is no dissident alternative in their primary?

Seventh, should dissident conservatives form their own party, for the sake of running their own candidates against existing GOP and Democrat candidates?

Eighth, should dissident conservatives refrain from supporting, with their votes, donations, campaign work, or editorial work, any GOP candidate who is a suppressor even if doing so means Democrats will likely win?

Ninth, or should they at least seek to establish a committee for determining when the need to defeat a particular Democrat is so pressing that normal dissident vows to not support suppressor conservatives are overridden?

Tenth, should conservative dissidents remain in the GOP coalition, but set up organizations within the party which are prepared to strategically withhold support or to grant it to politicians, on a case-by-case basis?

Eleventh, should conservative dissidents call for the impeachment of Donald Trump if he continues to defend Warp Speed and to de facto support the suppression?

Twelfth, should conservative dissidents essentially withdraw from, in a kind of mass boycott of or secession from, standard politics for the foreseeable future, and instead model their efforts on those Eastern European dissidents who set up, in cultural and organizational terms, a “parallel polis?”

Thirteenth, is the nature of the case one which can only be addressed by totally non-political action, i.e., through artistic/literary activity, religious activity, medical education activity, etc.?

Fourteenth, assuming that’s not so, and that our main political aim would be to take-over, or to outright replace, “official conservativism” and the GOP, would this be served by street protests and civil-disobedience actions along the lines of those deployed by Gandhi and King?

Fifteenth, as many of the key leaders and supporters of the “medical freedom movement” began 2020 as Democrats or as other kinds of non-conservatives, should we seek to form a new political party with them, which on more standard economic and cultural issues could be regarded as “centrist?”

Political mutinies can bring about births

Sixteenth, if that is unacceptable, could an organization which was not a new party but which nonetheless coordinated political pressure on both parties from a medical freedom perspective, be a workable alternative? More broadly, should dissident conservatives insist upon an organization led by persons clearly of their own political principles—i.e., one not led by persons like Steve Kirsch, Naomi Wolf, or C.J. Hopkins?

Seventeenth, would the ditching of basic conservative principles by “conservative” leaders, an event which the continuance of the suppression past 2025 would definitely indicate, be the sign that conservatism is essentially over? In this view, conservatism would be regarded as the stance most recommended by political wisdom from 1790 to 2025, but which changed conditions have now made obsolete.

Eighteenth, regardless of whether we would still call ourselves conservatives, what would the proper dissident stance towards existing churches/synagogues, and existing colleges/universities, be? Should we call, in both cases, or only in the educational one, for actions against, including boycotts of, those institutions which broadly support the suppression?

Most of these are questions which I don’t know the answers to. I need to discuss them. The exceptions are these: I’m pretty sure that the answers to the first and fifth have to be yes, and am quite sure that the answer to the thirteenth has to be no.

Reflections

These are the kinds of things we need to start talking about, to be ready if the worst happens, but more importantly, to lead the leaders of official conservatism to realize the depth of the moral abdication they are perhaps stumbling towards. They must counsel Trump that thoughts of extending the suppression are insane. They must stand with us against him if he won’t budge. They must admit to themselves that a fundamental turn, and a repentance for not making it sooner, is the only possible way.

Sansone and I do not talk about a “mutiny,” or whatever we should call it, primarily to have some convincing “or else!” capstone to our arguments. Again, if we to have to enter into this mutiny, we will probably lose the initial battles. You, oh “conservative” leaders, would be able to regard us as “loser” sectarian cranks for quite some time.

But whatever we can or cannot predict, all we know, as Martin Luther once said, is that this is where we have to stand.

Conservative leaders, to try to require more tolerance and patience from us, even with 2025 not ceasing your suppression, would be to make us into your committed political opponents, and likely for life. As I put it last time:

…in political creed terms, unity with you, and continued support of your publications and organizations, would become impossible. …[we] would have no choice but to part ways with the “official” conservatism you would likely still own and lead, and to declare ourselves out of political comradeship with you.

So if you dare to enter into the monstrosity that extended suppression would be, know that we will not follow. We will be done with you. For you would be attempting to suppress what is going to someday be revealed as the 1.) the greatest medical foul-up in human history, 2) the greatest crime against humanity (so far) possible when not done at direction of totalitarian ideologists like the communists or Nazis, and 3) and the greatest (so far) possible within putatively liberal democratic societies.

We dissident conservative writers and leaders may be a tiny remnant at present, even though at least half of MAGA regulars agree with us about the covid-vaxxes. What is more, we are unorganized. But speaking now for myself, I am ready, assuming the less-likely but staggeringly-dark scenario for 2025 happens, to go it largely alone, seeking out and gathering what remnant of principled conservatives I can. I’m no political organizer, so surely the main work would inevitably fall to others. In fact, my isolation and our disorganization is reflected in the very questions I ask here.

But in the longest run, I know we would be vindicated.

I urge those interested in preparing the groundwork for the perhaps-to-be-necessary mutiny to contact me, and to below offer what answers to my questions they can.

Addendum 1: The suggestion in the eighteenth question that members of churches or synagogues ought to just begin “boycotting” ones that support the suppression is off—speaking simply of my own Anglican Church of North America, I would never advocate that a member cease attending services or switch parishes on this basis. Let’s just say that the way I phrased the question cannot capture the complex texture of the actions which would need to be taken.

Addendum 2: As dissidents try to predict whether Trump-world will betray MAHA, or at least the anti-covid-vax aspect of MAHA, the most encouraging tea-leaf yet has come into view. Steve Bannon’s co-star Natalie Winters, a punditry/reporting star now in her own right, released yesterday a rant against Mike Pence’s supposedly pro-life recommendation against the nomination of RFK Jr., and it contains an outright denunciation of the mRNA meds for deaths and injuries to fertility. Whatever you think of Pence (and his most famous call, on certification), and whatever you think of RFK’s likely impact on abortion policy, this little moment in her rant (at 3:40-3:55) is a very important sign. It gives me an immense sense of relief, because if I’m reading the sign correctly, Winter’s attitude indicates insider populist-conservative determination to pressure the Trumpists to do the right thing. A few more signs like this, and what I ask about in this piece will move into the realm of the purely hypothetical.

1. Horribly, this is not difficult to envision. For so far, to participate in the suppression has been as simple as to just say or demand nothing, and to pretend to be ignorant about, and deferential to the appointed experts regarding, disagreements within specialized areas of science. And since that surrender of integrity has been in operation all through 2022-2024, and had become particularly hard to excuse from late 2022 on, why shouldn’t it continue, and especially if Trump wants it to? Our “conservative” leaders have gotten themselves rather used to it!

2. For examples of my more confrontational probes of this wall of silence, see “Adjunct Suppressors” from July of 2023, and this on The Federalist from last summer.