Diana West strikes fear deep into enemy territory outing Robert Malone's design to chill debate & silence his critics (e.g. Stew, Ruby, Breggins); That's why Dr. Robert Malone's openly stated goal
by Paul Alexander
in 2023 to use the courts to have a "chilling effect' on debate in the public square, which he's trying to rebrand as "defamation," is so disturbing; if as reported by West is true, this is disturbing
What do you think of this piece by West? I find interesting and I have to study it to be definitive.
‘The point is, separately, in different venues, the Breggins and Jane Ruby are individuals who rose to the challenge to try to inform a brutalized public about what turns out to have been a war: a war of fear, fraud and bioweaponry waged against us by own government. Their contributions were, are and will continue to be vitally important to the flow of essential and also life-saving information.’
‘Do you remember how hard it was to get good information, especially in 2020, back at the Beginning of the End? It is hard still, but it was much worse before so many of us had delved into the sciences with a doggedness we never mustered in high school; before we had learned to see into the geysers of government and media disinformation about the "plandemic," the "scamdemic," the garbage-demic, to take apart and stomp on all of the Big Lies we were and are still beset by. And that was even before the government's biochemical attack on the world via "mRNA vaccine" had begun.
The totalitarian-style censorship and disinformation which government, media and social media imposed upon us were (are) catastrophic and also fatal in all too many cases. That's why when we learn, through arduous court-ordered FOIA research or congressional hearings or secret interviews or confessions ... or autopsies that we were right to doubt and disbelieve and not comply, there are dead bodies, broken homes, ruined lives and a shattered future to embitter our vindication. To intensify our rage. That's why Dr. Robert Malone's openly stated goal in 2023 to use the courts to have a "chilling effect' on debate in the public square, which he's trying to rebrand as "defamation," is so disturbing, bizarre and fraught with peril.
Malone's interlocuters-turned-"defendants" are Dr. Peter Breggin, Ginger R. Breggin and Dr. Jane Ruby -- outlandish words to write about such worthies. I don't recall exactly when in the dark of lockdown I first came upon them. I do remember Dr. Jane's exciting reports on the then-new Stew Peters Show, her tenacity, her blinking neon committment to finding the truth, were an immediate godsend. At some point, too, I matched with the Breggins, Dr. Peter Breggin, "Conscience of Psychiatry," and his wife and co-author Ginger Breggin, benefiting enormously from their warm and civilized discourse, which included (bonus) two interviews with me about American Betrayal. I was delighted to learn my book had inspired the Breggins to dig into the research that became their 2021 success, COVID 19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey.
The point is, separately, in different venues, the Breggins and Jane Ruby are individuals who rose to the challenge to try to inform a brutalized public about what turns out to have been a war: a war of fear, fraud and bioweaponry waged against us by own government. Their contributions were, are and will continue to be vitally important to the flow of essential and also life-saving information.
Ask yourself: Why would anyone want to deflect these valuable contributors from their important vocations? So what if they said something, many things, with which you disagree, even violently disagree? So what if they reject and even rebut your theories? So what if they engage you in a veritable "war of words"? To quote vintage Michelle Malkin, "Boo-the-heck-hoo." Argue. Gnash your teeth. Write a rebuttal. Quote Voltaire. Exult in the First Amendment. But this -- resorting to the punitive enforcement mechanism of a defamation lawsuit -- is not right. Asking for $25 million in damages is an outrage. Such aggressive lawfare is akin to dropping a cluster bomb. The landscape that was is no more.
As many know, I am referring to the tantrum-esque defamation lawsuit D. Robert Malone has brought against the Breggins and Jane Ruby. I wrote a book about 15 years ago called The Death of the Grown-Up, which employs the metaphor to explore chaos and decline in our time. However, the absence of bona fide adults is not just a metaphorical problem. We could really use some grown-ups here. To wit:
If there happens to be an adult in the vicinity of Dr. Malone's circle, please, could you instruct the "inventor of the mRNA vaccine" to pack his marbles and come home from the playground? Given the catastrophic impact of his precious invention as deployed by the governments of the world, he's surely the last man on earth who should be trying to exert a "chilling effect" on anything -- and especially not on the speech of doctors and scientists. People are dying from these shots all around. We need help. Debate. Breakthroughs. Not silence, not fear of being dragged to court for speaking up. Sticks and stones, anyone? Like Rick said in Casablanca, the problems of three (or four) little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world; however, if Malone were to win this lawsuit, American jurisprudence would feature a jihad-style trip-wire on public debate by public figures on public issues. Then again, if the First Amendment and American tradition count for anything at all anymore, the court will rule decisively against Malone. One man's "defamation" will be everyone else's free speech.
But at what cost? Stories of case-related censorship and acrimony buzz around the erstwhile medical freedom movement. Wouldn't it be a better use of everyone's time to try to figure out how to heal mRNA-injected humanity?
It was about half-way through 2021 when Dr. Malone showed his face in public discourse. Remember the weird thrill that rippled through the battered band of shot-resisters? Look: the mRNA inventor was throwing shade, some, anyway, on the mass injection program at that time in full-throttle- enforcement.Yes, to be sure, Xyklon B isn't for everybody....How exciting? I'm not sure what psychological buttons Malone's arrival on the scene pushed; as I think back on it now, such enthusiasm doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, he didn't come forward expressing remorse, as lots of great inventors have done before him, rueing their sometimes literally earth-shaking inventions, from the atom bomb and the Kalishnakov, to the office cubicle and the labradoodle. Notably, "The History of mRNA Vaccines" still unfolds under a spray of lovely pink blossoms here on Malone's website.
Nor did he arrive on the medical freedom scene waving an antidote to mRNA technology, which, they say, has now been "delivered" into 70 percent of humanity and linked to a scale of death and injury that is unimagineable.
Kristen Napolillo asked Malone on Twitter: "What are you doing to find a way to blunt the effects of your invention?"
One thing about quoting Dr. Robert Malone: There is no need to underscore or add anything.
On June 8, 2023, Dr. Malone set forth his legal thinking on Substack:
My criteria for taking legal action has been whether or not someone seems to be doing significant reputational damage, while also factoring in the quirky nature of various clauses in defamation law.
It's almost touching, isn't it, to see someone who "invented the mRNA vaccine" fretting about "reputational damage"?
In some cases I have proceeded to delivering a cease and desist and that was enough. Dr. Richard Fleming was one such case. I sent him a letter, and he stopped. Seems rational enough. Thank you, Richard (and I seriously mean that).
Again, no comment necessary -- but I do want to write that again: Thank you, Richard (and I seriously mean that).
Turns out that response is the exception rather than the rule. Others double down, go public, get even nastier and more personally vindictive.
No! Can you beat that? Malone sends out a "cease and desist" and some people ... refuse?
So then you have the same dilemma. Act on it or not. Fish or cut bait. First stop is to ask a mutual colleague to intervene. In almost all cases they refused. So you then pay the lawyer to prepare and file the suit. And in some cases the accused gets even nastier, and seeks to cause yet more pain.
It's a marvel but he soldiers on:
There are all of the armchair quarterbacks, some of who are employers, friends or associates with the ones doing the harassment and defamation. “Why are you suing the ____ (fill in the blank)!!??!!” “You just want to destroy the medical freedom movement!” (whatever that is). “You are just doing it for money!” (what a horrible business plan that would be, given the paltry odds of winning a defamation lawsuit).
"Fill in the blank"? Somehow, I feel bidden to provide photos of the people, the experts, including an eminent doctor, the writers and comentators, the human beings whom Dr. Malone has just turned into a blank.
Now, let him rip.
No, I am suing because I am having something taken from me, and it is both wrong and illegal. My reputation, my peace of mind, and that of those close to me. Cyberstalking, cyberbullying, malicious defamation. These things are wrong. They are not what civilized, mentally healthy people do to each other. And they often seem to involve some odd perverse obsession.
But it is also true that hate and defamation is a very good business model and a great way to build up a follower base. People are building their audiences by employing this strategy based on tall tales, lies, name calling and hate. But maybe, just maybe, if I win a case, this will become a disincentive for those prone to this sort of behavior in the future, directed towards me or to others.
And then there are the ones that are shunning me because I am (legally) fighting back against those that are doing this to Jill and I [sic]. That part is a real mind-bender for me. Somehow fighting back against those who are aggressively cyberstalking and defaming me on a daily basis makes me the bad guy. Now if that is not pretzel logic, I do not know what is.
I suppose, in an intellectual sense, it is a fascinating question to ponder - what makes these people behave in this way? Why do haters hate? Why do others support them? I do not have an answer, only informed speculation. Personally, I think it somehow relates to the mental state of other types of stalkers, such as the ones that shot President Regan [sic] and John Lennon. And it clearly relates to envy, jealousy, and greed. Spreading hate can be quite lucrative in the age of the internet, where attention seeking behavior can be monetized. So there is that. (Emphasis added.)
I have no quip to make when the rhetoric is so troubling. Consider seriously that Dr. Malone has first blanked the names of the Breggins and Jane Ruby, and then created an escalating series of fantastical enemies, from imaginary cyberstalkers, cyberbullies, malicious defamers, to not civilized, not mentally healthy people, to haters with a mentality "somehow related" to that of notorious violent criminals: John Hinkley and Mark David Chapman, the former, the attempted-assassin who wounded Ronald Reagan and paralyzed James Brady; the latter, the assassin of John Lennon.
Still, no one around him has put a hand on his shoulder and said, Enough.
Let's pick up on p. 13 of a recent Motion to Dismiss by Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger R. Breggin.
The Breggin Motion is discussing the thirteenth bulleted item in Malone's Complaint. This Item 13 contains four separate allegations of defamation purported to be found in an online interview of Dr. Breggin by Pete Santilli.
From the Breggins' Motion to Dismiss:
Malone alleges that Breggins stated: Dr. Malone is part of the "Deep State" oppressors. Dr. Malone's concept of mass formation psychosis is calculated to protect the "mass murderers of COVID-19." Dr. Malone is a Hitler apologist and "excuser." "Malone wake up to history."
When examining the entire interview of Dr. Breggin on this show, nowhere in the show can it be found that Dr. Breggin made the statement that Malone atrributes to him that he is a part of the "Deep State oppressors."
Malone's allegations that Breggin stated that "Dr. Malone's concept of mass formation psychosis is calculated to protect the `mass murderers of COVID-19' is actually Breggin talking about Dr. Desmet, not Dr. Malone.
And lastly, nowhere in this recorded interview (or anywhere else for that matter) can it be found where Dr. Breggin ever stated that Dr. Malone is "a Hitler apologist and excuser."
First of all, may I say (shout): Who cares! Say what you will! These are public commentators debating the onset of totalitarianism in our time. Hitler, Stalin, Mao are the totalitarian all-stars, at least up to now, and are gonna come up. Boo-the-heck-hoo. Still, there is a crucially important legal (and moral) point here: The Breggins' brief states that certain of these quotations are not to be found on video, or anywhere else. If this is true -- and I cannot find them, either -- the Malone Complaint includes false allegations. Put that in your syringe and shoot it. What will the judge say about that?
And now this:
Moreover, the only quote that can be found to be semi-accurate, "Desmet, Malone, wake up to history," is a perjorative at best, and an admonotion even, but it is not defamatory.
No, it is not. But ponder the legal mind that sees fit to include such an innocuous comment, with its pleasantly archaic rhetorical flourish, into a defamation brief. Ponder the scientific mind that hopes for a "chilling effect." Frankly, if Dr. Robert Malone is so darn worried about reputational damage, he should drop this stupid lawsuit ASAP and wake up. Wake up to free speech.’