The Attack Dog Barks, Part 2

Chaos Agents, Part 10

"Pauca sed matura. (Few, but ripe.)" -Carl Friedrich Gauss

Click here to see other articles on Chaos Agents. 

Ask questions. That's always fair. If you aren't certain that you understand something, ask questions. I ask a lot of them because there is so much that I don't understand. But please follow links prior to asking questions.

Before we get started, I'd like to define some useful terms:

• A midwit is somebody who sacrificed sharpening their intuition for the sake of overpromoting their education in order to achieve a higher position in the globohomo power hierarchy. Example: The midwits really do think wearing three masks will prevent viral infection and a nervous inferiority complex.

• A halfwit is somebody who sacrifices academic disciplines and rigor, establishing a mild to severe messianic complex that is difficult to penetrate with facts. Example: The halfwit felt so certain the stock price would fall that he handed over his financial gambling budget to a conman without doing due diligence.

• Somebody is witless if they lack both instincts and education.

Part of the problem we face in the Medical Freedom Movement (MFM)---or as Derrick Blanton prefers to call it "Not a Movement" (which I fundamentally agree with)---is that those who see themselves as part of the MFM recognize the midwits all too well, but find themselves more confused by halfwits like Derrick Blanton. And the real problem is that this leaves those looking for a strong daddy figure bullied toward those who want to use that mass formation to engineer an outcome of mass violence. 

Yes, this issue with Derrick is about the dangerous combination of partisanship-over-facts, messianic thinking, and support for violent solutions.

Being completely fair, I should have made that more clear in my last article. I may also have made a mistake picking the wrong Derrick Blanton out of a lineup (I've added an edit to my first article), but Derrick should take credit for the larger part of the error. After all, he's the one hiding in anonymity. He called the mistake "bad journalism" on my part, but wow, nearly everything he said about me over the past few days is strictly false or misleading. I'll share some of the clear examples.

---

The Dangerous, Messianic Halfwit

A few weeks ago, I emailed Derrick about Died Suddenly because of his excited commentary about the documentary suggested that he wasn't aware of a lot of the background information. I wasn't sure how much of my DMED research he was aware of yet, but wanted for him to understand the importance of the Unissant story in particular. To be clear, my worry is that Renz and at least some of the DMED whistleblowers are actively or passively covering up for Unissant which could be the lynchpin to bring down the entire vaccine campaign.

It should make everyone take pause that none of the lawyers are going after the contractor that handles the military health data. Surely, a "journalist" such as Derrick would find this point important, right?

Derrick's response struck me as bizarre.

In his next email, he says he's not reading the DMED articles and hadn't even watched Died Suddenly.

Right, he was taking the public position "documentary good because number high". I told him that I was baffled about his indifference to the documentary. His reply includes some condescending language that I'll leave out, but here is the halfwitted messianic part:

He hasn't done the due diligence to even know if he's talking about the documentary, but he seems certain that he understands what's in it, what effect that information will have, and his grasp on the science. He also dismisses any notion that the investigation into Unissant could have any influence in a cost-benefit calculus.

This is disturbingly delusional.

Already, at this point, I feel that if I'd called out his identity, I'd have been perfectly reasonable in doing so. He has a following supporting his reporting with admittedly intentional material omissions. That's beyond half-witted.

This is some lawyering right here. To jump from "respect" to what respect entails is not anyone's judgment call but mine. I absolutely respect most anyone's right to take a walk through a park, but if I see them attack a family, that respect doesn't stop me from drawing my glock and looking for a clean shot. And let's be clear, this is an issue of violence.

---

The Violent Partisan Circle

Let's be clear, Stew Peters has a more-than-questionable history that involves deception, arrests, and a small pile of dead bodies. But the story is far worse than that. He is part of a circle that is calling for organize or mob violence, including specifically at the federal government.

As those who know me know, I am not at all a fan of large, centralized government. In fact, I think that its existence is what allowed for the regulatory capture that led to the totalitarian globalization hell we're heading toward (if it doesn't burn itself out).

But any haphazard violence against the federal government is likely to be met with a response similar to the January 6, 2021 protests. This was part of the point of my Effective Resistance article.

How the Magic Trick Works: Cutting Off Effective Resistance

Now, let's view some of the players surrounding Stew Peters.

Leigh Dundas, the attorney who introduced the DMED whistleblowers to Thomas Renz, was at the January 6 protests mixing in patriotic language with discussions of government coups.

As I've also previously mentioned, I was told by one of the organizers of the Arise USA tour that Dundas was kicked out of their tour partially over concerns that she was encouraging violent rebellion. Dundas has been a frequent Stew Peters guest, though never questioned about her promotion of violence or escape from justice. I'm told that Peters, "follows Dundas around like a puppy dog," which makes you wonder the extent of organized relationships among these Chaos Agents who seem to be immune from responsibility for their behavior.

After I wrote about Dr. Ben Marble's recent appearance with Stew Peters, a member of the active duty military contacted me to mention that he met Dr. Marble and that Dr. Marble was going around to members of the military telling them that they needed to revolt and take over the military and country. And while I cannot confirm that sedition, it does seem in line with a lot of other comments and conduct I've seen from him.

Why does Senator Johnson even let these people in the door?

Obligatory reminder that the woman in middle, next to Dundas, in front of Dr. Marble, is Patricia Rodriguez, whom I'm told by leaders of the U.S. truckers convoy was not arrested when the vehicle she was traveling in was pulled over, and a large cache of weapons was found inside.

But if you head on over to Sage's Newsletter, he (and apparently others whom he shares that account with…hmmm) spends his time attacking me while defending some of these people and their extended circle—and in a very slanted way. Derrick does also give time to people like Mike Yeadon who aren't trying to engineer violence, but now that I understand Derrick better, I suspect that in his world, such people are props for the larger purpose. And I don't even mean that Derrick necessarily knows that. He may very well be some guy who got excited about being randomly passed insider info, and just sort of fell into playing the toadie role for those who can't imagine a solution that doesn't involve mass blood in the streets.

Gosh…if only there were a target for a fraud suit (which would legally trigger an end to the whole vaccine EUA)...like…Unissant…

---

Please, Lecture Me About Journalism, Derrick

Since our conflict began, Derrick has been busy attacking me aggressively. That's fine, except that he clearly doesn't care about telling the stories honestly. Here, Derrick creates a fictional tale about how I'm taking my friend Brook Jackson to task.

He follows it with a several paragraph long quote from me that doesn't mention Brook, makes no sense at all in context with Brook, and cuts off the part of the conversation where I specifically explain that I'm not talking about Brook Jackson. Huh.

Almost everything else Derrick says about me is either taken out of context, or involves his own suggested reading of my mind to fill in details. He also promotes comments that he either knows are incorrect, or would know are incorrect had he bothered to check with me.

No, the DoD did not scrub the data to hide the injuries. The 2021 data was never altered. Nobody at all has ever claimed that any data was ever removed. This is an honest mistake on Kathleen's part, and Derrick seems perfectly happy to keep her in the dark (so long as it means keeping her in his violent circle of influence?). Later, she concludes,

And here we are—full circle of the very same utilitarian mindset that paved the way for the experiment quasi-vaccine rollout. "If it saves just one life…" is one of the most dangerous phrases in the history of language. It can justify almost anything. In this case, Kathleen probably doesn't realize that it's being used to justify inaction in investigating the contractor who handles the military health database. Again, Derrick seems perfectly happy to keep her in the dark.

Here, Derrick presents a message from Thomas Renz, through him, which is clearly misleading, but goes unquestioned by Derrick. Let's be clear: (1) Renz knows I think he is full of shit regarding the handling of the DMED data because I made that clear to him—his surprise could not possibly be real, (2) the idea that this is about "nitpicking" is absurd on face because we know that the calculations performed and presented at the Johnson hearing in January used incomplete data that dramatically elevated the percentage increases—Renz stated agreement with me in private without refutation, (3) Renz states that he has made very few errors, but I have found errors in every one of his data presentations and find him totally incompetent with data, and (4) I find the idea that we are on the "same team" troubling, and feel that his actions are helping the team he claims he's fighting (by giving the opposition easy targets while protecting Unissant).

Derrick questions nothing Tom says, though almost none of it simultaneously correct and reasonable. This is toadie partisanship on full display. Derrick then shares Tom's post about Died Suddenly, which I hadn't read. But this part is disturbing:

So why would I be so excited about something that I get nothing out of and creates more work for me? The answer is that this film did a wonderful job of forcing people to look at some very scary issues that many have done everything possible to avoid. The press has been put in to a position where they have two options, try and discredit a movie that has a number of facts that cannot be discredited (the rubbery clots are a new and inarguable issue and the DoD has yet to provide any explanation for the DMED data other than to say, without ANY explanation, that there was a “glitch”). If the press does try and discredit the movie it only makes it more popular and if they ignore it then it continues to move forward without any counter-narrative. This is good for anyone that wants a public discourse about the truth of these death jabs.

No, the clots are not inarguable. And statements like this scream, "I have no idea how to test this matter myself, scientifically speaking."

Tom is right about one thing: the reason that the press will not pick the DMED story in the documentary apart (or his absurd, anti-scientific notion of inarguability) is that they don't want to draw eyeballs to it. You have to wonder if this is why the documentary makers together with the whistleblowers felt they could abuse the DMED data story the way they did.

But let's be clear, I explained the DMED data glitch to Tom in February. There was a glitch, and that the DoD did not provide any explanation for it (at first) makes complete sense.

Not once ever did Tom push back at my explanations or findings in this or any other regard. On the other hand, the DoD did eventually say that the glitch was introduced during a server migration in August 2021, and Tom certainly knows that.

On the other hand, Tom makes no mention at all of Unissant, and despite telling me in March that filing FOIAs to get at communications between the DoD and Unissant was his "top priority", and me connecting him with the insider FOIA specialist who helped Aaron Siri craft his Pfizer data FOIAs, Tom shows zero interest.

Also from Tom,

I’ve talked to Matt and am fine with him pushing whatever he wants. I stand by my work and will not bad mouth him. Last I spoke with Matt (it was a while ago) he was sure he had the magic bullet to bring everything down. This happens a lot and most people that find things do not realize that there is no single magic bullet because the people we are fighting do not care about truth. We win this incrementally by continuing to push more real info and waking more people up.

Ah, he belittles the actual, real investigation into how the data might have been manipulated as me having something like a fantasy of a magic bullet (sure, belittling is distinct from bad mouthing, I guess). Well, sheesh Tom, we could continue to reload the gun with your fictional bullet, but if you put the real one in there, the gun might fire.

This isn't really hard to fathom. One can only pretend that it is.

Tom continued,

Honestly, I did not even know he was saying anything about DMED but I stand by it. If the military wants to dispute it they can give me full access to see what happened - until then I call BS (I have video of this stuff being taken off of the servers). For my part, I’ll just keep fighting and do am no worrying about people fussing.

He certainly knew about my DMED findings that completely invalidated the numbers he presented, whether or not he knew that I was writing about it again, so this is an extremely weird thing to say. But the part about having a "video of this stuff being taken off the servers" is either complete deception or total stupidity. Yes, the database was taken down while the missing data was being uploaded or enabled (while the glitch was being repaired). That's how databases generally work. In fact, the DMED has routinely been taken offline for updates going back years and years. This is neither nefarious, nor meaningful.

But don't worry, all this is in a post with a title that assures us that he supports patriots.

More from Tom (emphasis mine),

This is a short vent I wanted to share with you all about reporting on truth. From the beginning of this fight I have worked tirelessly to ensure that everything I share publicly is accurate and verified. When I have questions about the veracity I share it and when I find out I made a mistake I own it. All that said, I am going to vent here a bit.

Almost everything I've seen from Tom has been mistake after mistake, and I've seen him own exactly none of it. I also haven't seen him say a word yet about Dundas's calls for violence (or anyone else's). Does he approve, think it's inconsequential, or is this a display of dominance by Dundas in the relationship?

Call this "infighting" if you like. I call it "being fully truthful and accurate" about an extremely important matter. Derrick just skates over all of that and declares that Tom "takes the high road". I'm sure those actually responsible for any data manipulation would concur.

I have emailed Tom to invite him onto Rounding the Earth to explain himself. I doubt he'll answer. After all (and much like Stew Peters), he refused to say my name while "answering" my critiques by not answering them. I suspect that he desperately wants his audience not to find this suspect, or my articles about the DMED data (or Chaos Agents). I've been told that he deleted at least one comment on his substack by somebody asking about my DMED research. And if he has deleted one, he has probably deleted several.

---

The Rabid Victim

There are people in the MFM trying to steer attention to those who are dishonest and toward those who are stoking violence. I'm trying to highlight those tactics, and who is responsible.

If I'm wrong, please help. Help me understand what the right way would be to handle this without simply promoting inaction to the potential presence of Chaos Agents disrupting community formation. I don't want the job. I never did. Everything that I'm doing, I do because I see unfulfilled needs. And I'm often told that I'm risking my life in the process.

It didn't take long after my last article for both comments and emails to roll in, documenting an array of Derrick's disturbing behavior. It seems that scores of people have been cussed out and banned by Derrick when he disagrees with them. I had previously had to warn Derrick when he ferociously attacked somebody on my own comment page. His mean girl persona seems intentional, and I get the feeling that he enjoys hurting people.

Anyone wonder if Derrick serves that purpose so that guys like Tom can just say, "Merry Christmas" and "I Support Patriots", leave important critique of their behavior unanswered, and move on?

---

Stop Being Distracted?

Here is a good article by Dr. Ah Kahn Syed that I mostly agree with.

It doesn't matter

From that article,

I appreciate the backing here because, in the words of Steve Kirsch (ahem), "Nobody will debate me."

My good friend J.J. Couey ran a stream yesterday morning focusing on the arkmedic's article.

I'd like to make some specific statements with respect to the conflict in which I am embroiled:

• (1) I agree that the conflicts in the MFM don't matter in the Big Picture.

• (2) I do think that understanding them matters to those making difficult decisions with their time and resources.

• (3) The time I'm spending is forcing people in the MFM to make statements, like Renz did.

With respect to (1), my belief is that any opposition (MFM) "win" is likely a controlled narrative, and that it will come only with an acceptance of U.S. control of a global military-banking complex. But the larger win will involve bankruptcy of the whole scheme, which I root for even if it means going through great pains (or perishing myself…I'd rather my species move forward with better lives).

With respect to (2), I believe that Chaos Agents are baiting you to waste your time and money on missions that…don't make a difference. In fact, some of my future articles will expose how millions of dollars have either been embezzled, are being used to fund Chaos Agent activity, or are otherwise sidelined for the duration of what feels increasingly like staged battles.

With respect to (3), I think Renz's statements gave me exactly the opportunity needed to show how absurd the man is. Derrick certainly did not do him any favors drawing him out further. But let any of the others I've critiqued answer. The rest of the MFM should have the opportunity to see these debates.

---

Your Moment of Zen

While it turned out that this particular Derrick Blanton is (probably) not Sage Hana, I have to respect his ability to show his face singing what should be a Sage Hana brand tune.