The Road to Heaven is Paved with Good Intentions

let's apply that to Malone ...

On Meryl Nass’ post Malone v Breggin, I’ve been having a long and deep conversation with Dan Freeman who writes Freedom and other Unacceptable Views. In his last very thorough and articulate reply, he explained his position as: “I am advocating for praising someone’s good actions and words and critiquing their bad actions and words, without going to motive.”

I think this is a VERY important topic to clarify, not just for our current movement / not-a-movement but for this moment in time that I believe to be an empire deflection point—an opportunity to change the direction of the world from a fight over who’s on top to a decentralized system of small-scale sovereignty.

This is the common thread between all the topics I cover and all the ideas I critique—empire vs sovereignty. As I’ve said, I think that’s the only war. The rulers who create wars are all on the same side and only differ on who rules who. The rest of us are also on the same side and all being used by them. Before we can change the economic or geopolitical system, we need to be clear about which side we’re on.

So let’s start with the concept of Heaven. In the gospels, we’re told that we should love everyone as ‘Jesus’ loves us. I’m using quotes around the word ‘Jesus’ because no matter what we believe, we all agree this is a name that doesn’t exist in the Hebrew language, so it can’t refer to a first century Hebrew. ‘Jesus’ then tells us that some will go to heaven and others will not—the ‘robbers’ crucified with him as one example.

We’re left here with two choices: that you can love someone but be happy while they’re punished or that loving like ‘Jesus’ doesn’t mean loving everyone. Either implies an imperial rather than inclusive definition of love.

---

So this is the first question for each of us—are we on the side of empire or sovereignty? Do we see our safety as being on the winning team or a global society where every person deserves equal respect, every community has the right to rule themselves and share in the resources that make self-reliance possible?

On a spiritual level, the only Heaven that makes logical sense is an inclusive one, as the bodhisattvas believe (all for one and one for all!), or a state of Interbeing, as Thich Nhat Hahn terms it, or Oneness, as the mystics define it. If Heaven exists at all, that’s the only one worth imagining.

So the road to heaven is paved with giving credit for good intentions and questioning when the words and actions don’t match. On that Dan and I agree. When I critique someone’s words or actions, it’s based on being inconsistent with their stated or implied intentions. It’s never based on who they are.

---

For Naomi Wolf, for instance, her belief in a God that chose her people over others, protects her people but not others, gave her people the lands of others, and even made others their slaves is inconsistent with my dogma that God doesn’t like me better than anyone else. I don’t know if it’s inconsistent with hers.

With Robert Malone, his words and actions are inconsistent with each other. At its core, he’s claiming to represent the Medical Freedom Movement that’s about bodily sovereignty for adults, family sovereignty for children, and community sovereignty for everyone. He’s included posts on groups around the world taking responsibility for their healthcare provision and policies. He’s supported decentralized systems, which is what caused him to subscribe to my ‘stack.

His career, however, has been the exact opposite: working in the spaces between militarized empire—the Pentagon, CIA and DoD, the economic empire—Big Pharma and government contractors, and the global healthcare empire—the WHO and Billionaire ‘Philanthropy’.

As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. shows in his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, the contracts that Malone ‘won’ for his clients have not been things to brag about. He was involved in the conflation of HIV and AIDS that cost thousands of gay men a horrible death hastened by AZT, as Celia Farber documents in her book Serious Adverse Events: the Uncensored History of AIDS.

Malone brought the players together for the Ebola vaccine, which Geert Vanden Bossche saw as a precedent for his warning about a Covid vaccine catastrophe. As Sage Hana shows, Malone has never spoken out about what went wrong with the West Africa Ebola Trials. Nor has he ever criticized the whole vaccine program that RFK has spent his life trying to expose. Covid has finally given RFK an audience and credibility, yet Malone undermines this hard-won message with interviews like the one with Aubrey Marcus.

---

But let’s go to Dan Freeman’s thoughtful responses to me. In his initial comment, he mentioned that he’d been following Malone for the last three years. I asked him how he had discovered Malone before the darkhorse podcast. He replied:

First, I went back and I cant find any evidence I saw his mrna paper earlier or criticisms of mrna earlier than darkhorse or trial site. I may have been reading his work on sars-cov-2 and mass cell activation. But those were all productive research endeavors that got me questioning spike.

I think this is an important question, not just to see whether Malone’s opinion changed but whether, as Mark Kulacz speculates, something necessitated Malone stepping into this role. In my video on Phony Maloney & WikiSpooks, I read an unverified Twitter from Malone in August of 2019 about the gullibility of anti-vaxxers. Although I took it out of the print version after JJ Couey, Mathew and Mark felt it was over the top, it wouldn’t have been out of character for a vaccinologist in Aug 2019.

If Malone’s account was scrubbed from Twitter when he was deplatformed, or he deleted it himself, there would be no way of verifying or denying it—except that Mark on Housatonic has saved the three years prior to its deletion on July 2021! So that may answer some of the questions.

Dan continues:

With so much on the line clearly there are agents acting for political and corporate interests, agitating, derailing, redirecting efforts etc, if we accept this then asking questions, poking, prodding, critiquing and categorizing ideas and people who have stepped into the public square is fair game and really essential. So I am not advocating for shutting down that conversation. …

I am advocating for praising someones good actions and words and critiquing their bad actions and words, without going to motive. I think this sets up a kind of self governing pathway for people in a movement. It creates accountability and maintains forward momentum without running each other off the road. It also opens up the road for more people to join without fear of being hamstrung from all sides. I think we all know it's lonely taking these positions. Leaving the comfort of the group only to risk being labelled a traitor amongst the dissidents is not an attractive proposition. Any accusations towards motive on this front should be beyond reproach in my view.

I was alerted by Sage Hana to the Substack of Daniel Nagase, who I remember seeing speak early in the pandemic after hospital administrators ended his medical career for giving three patients ivermectin. He has a post called Discrepancy Analysis that he had used in the ER for discovering what was really going on. He outlines:

1) Discrepancies of speech: Does an individual say one thing one day, and something else the next? If there is a discrepancy, then the next step is assessing if it is intentional. What is the motive for that discrepancy? is there a reason?

2) Discrepancies of Action: Does an individual say one thing but do another?

3) Discrepancies of Reality: Sometimes speech and action are consistent, but there is a discrepancy with reality.

Any time there is a discrepancy of speech, a discrepancy in action, or a discrepancy with reality, then there might be a problem. Intent is a key factor to assess if there is a minor problem, such as forgetfulness, or a major problem such as an intent to harm. Depending on the discrepancy, the consequences may affect individuals, communities or an entire nation.

He then uses this to analyze a 2-hr conversation he had with Malone back in Nov 2021. Negase’s concern was that reverse-transcribed RNA would integrate into the DNA, particularly causing the genetic alteration of children. Malone drops off the call for 10 minutes and comes back cautioning against speculation because they have to be careful about the freedom community’s messaging.

In his recent post, How to Flip a Double or Triple Agent, having identified this discrepancy in Malone, Negase speculates on motive. After eliminating several as being internally inconsistent, his most logical is:

Having a “trusted” figure who told us the “truth” the first time around is critically important to sell mRNA injections 2.0 to “save” us from the next “bioweapon”. You can’t sell a product if everyone knows about the fatal DNA altering flaw.

It’s important to note, for listeners, that trusted, truth, save and bioweapon are all in quotes, although I think the last could be left off. With Negase’s warning found to be true, this should have been an important part of the ‘messaging’ Malone took it upon himself to police and control for the “freedom” “movement”.

---

Dan continues:

Whether I agree with [Malone’s] assessment of the source of the horror or not (and I would say he is partly there) or even his prescription to the problem (which I am leaning away from on a more fundamental level) he is making a difference at both blowing the whistle on the abject risks of the tech and the breakdown of the institutions we have relied on for 'safety' data / regulations. This has saved lives.

Early enough? Enough by other measures ? I have to ask myself, what have I done in comparison? I can see that he has done unquestionably more than most and so I am grateful.

What Negase shows is that Malone suppressed blowing the whistle on mRNA. Who knows how many other critics were silenced or who might have filled the vacuum if Malone hadn’t assumed the position of spokesperson?

A likely candidate is Robert F. Kennedy and his critique of vaccines altogether, as I talk about in Infodemic. Malone has narrowed the focus so that it doesn’t damage trust in the institutions he’s worked for, ones that Kennedy exposes as rewarding corruption by their very design and, in the case of Peter Duesberg, destroying those who aren’t corrupt, as I mention in Conspiracy Theorist as the New Heretic.

On the topic of early intervention and saving lives, Ginger and Peter Breggin write:

Could This Man Have Saved the World?

In January 2020, Malone published on ResearchGate an elaborate scientific paper with MIT researcher Darrell O. Ricke as the first author in which the two concluded that all COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA, were too deadly to be given even experimentally to humans. …

As he became a public figure with considerable influence, he never drew professional or public attention to this scientific conclusion that the mRNA vaccines were literally unfit for human consumption, even experimentally. He never disclosed that he and his coauthor had proven this to their own satisfaction in their own laboratory research and in a review of the scientific literature.

Given how long it takes to conduct laboratory experiments, review the scientific literature, and write and edit an illustrated finished paper, the paper published in January 2020 reflected knowledge obtained at least several months or more earlier in 2019. Malone may have held back on informing the public about the deadly effects of the genetic vaccines for three and a half years or more.

In other early interventions, Sage Hana, George Webb and Mark Kulacz have been following the $21M given to Alchem in April of 2020 to test repurposed drugs:

Robert Malone [is] chief medical officer of Florida-based Alchem Laboratories, a contract manufacturing organization. Malone is part of a classified project called DOMANE that uses computer simulations, artificial intelligence, and other methods to rapidly identify U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs and other safe compounds that can be repurposed against threats such as new viruses.

What did they do with this $21M? They tested Pepcid AC, an over-the-counter heartburn medicine. Why? Because Malone claimed it worked for him in Feb, someone gave it to their sister whose lips were blue from hypoxia and she got better, and poor people in China who couldn’t afford the name brand antacid were surviving better than rich people. Eureka!

However $21M wasn’t enough to do dedicated trials so they only tested it in combination with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, neither of which they tested on their own. If any of their tests had worked, there would have been no emergency use authorization and no experimental injection would have been approved.

Between the lives that could have been saved by testing ivermectin or HCQ and the ones that wouldn’t have been lost if he’d mentioned his own research showing mRNA to be deadly, I think the ‘vaccine-injured’ paying $700 a person for his event this weekend deserve a refund.

---

Dan ends by applying what he calls the ‘faith lens’ which starts by asking, “Have the things Dr Malone said saved lives?” and answering “Unquestionably yes.” He then looks at how we’re all prone to make mistakes and need forgiveness and redemption. He continues:

And so from that perspective, even if Dr Malone made a mistake or did something that was self directed or self centered, which would make him human, … would we want him in the fight? I think surely we do, as he has been a force for good, regardless if he has made mistakes. Mistakes are something we are bound to do by our nature. The question is, can we also do good?

And that’s where it comes back to motive. When someone makes a mistake and it’s pointed out, they change course. They apologize. They don’t sue for $25M. When Malone apologizes, I’ll be the first to forgive.

---

I appreciate Dan sending me his heartfelt reply, which I hope to have answered in good faith as another person just trying to figure it all out. Thanks for his permission to use his argument to organize my thoughts. For more on older topics, here’s Infodemic: RFK and the Real Anthony Fauci:

Asks why the spread of information is the virus that most worries them. Examines Robert F. Kennedy's The Real Anthony Fauci as metajournalism that puts the virus as the "March madness champion" of many attempted pandemics. Looks at The United States of Fear by Mark McDonald and why it says we're not in a data war but a psychological war. Analyzes the instability of a tightly organized delusion system and why sacrifice increases the loyalty to it.

and this is Conspiracy Theorist as the New Heretic on Brad Evans:

Responding to Russell Brand's interview of Brad, I examine obedience to the "technotheocracy" by looking at guilt as a more potent form of fear. I look at the 1987 defunding of Peter Duesberg as the replacement of science and empirical data with the religion of profit-friendly woke-speak. I define conspiracy theory as what investigative journalism used to be before it was replaced with infotainment. I propose propaganda as the interweaving of truth and lies, and Trump as a double-agent who turned truth into heresy by association and made villains into heroes by opposition. I cite Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi on the victim as sacred object, as Brad puts it. I applaud the diabolical cleverness of the strategy to term all power as privilege and make us give it up willingly.