Dynamics of Dialectical Faucism

“I can’t stay at this job forever,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, 81, told reporters on Saturday, hinting at retirement from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which he has directed since 1984. “I have said that I would stay in what I’m doing until we get out of the pandemic phase, and I think we might be there already,” explained Fauci. By the next day, the NIAID boss was thinking along different lines.

I’m not so sure, George,” Fauci told George Stephanopoulos on ABC News’ “This Week.” “I want to make sure we’re really out of this before I really seriously consider doing anything different. We’re still in this.” While Fauci ponders his options, embattled Americans might consider the context. 

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) recently introduced an amendment to restructure NIAID and eliminate Fauci’s job. “We’ve learned a lot over the past two years,” Paul said, “but one lesson in particular is that no one person should be deemed ‘dictator in chief.’ No one person should have unilateral authority to make decisions for millions of Americans.” 

Paul, a physician, has “never encountered someone with the gall to proclaim himself ‘the science’ and portray anyone opposing him as ‘attacking science.’ That is, until Dr. Fauci became the COVID dictator-in-chief.” Paul mourns “those we lost to the crushing and overbearing lockdowns and mandates that were based on junk science.” That did not force Fauci’s retirement, but one of his powerful colleagues already took that route. 

“Neither NIH nor NIAID have [sic] ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans,” said National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins in a May 19, 2021 statement. In October, weeks after Collins announced his resignation, the NIH boss admitted funding a “limited experiment” to test if bat coronaviruses were “capable of binding” to a human receptor.

Collins, the first NIH boss to serve more than one president, also teamed up with Fauci on another pandemic issue. 

In October 2020, Drs. Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford), Sunetra Gupta (Oxford), and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard) authored the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) to “express our grave concerns over the inadequate protection of the vulnerable and the devastating harms of the lockdown pandemic policy adopted by much of the world.” 

In an October 8, 2020 email, Collins instructed Fauci to target the GBD. “There needs to be a quick and devastating public takedown of its premises,” Collins wrote. “I don’t see that online yet. Is it underway?” 

In an Epoch Times commentary, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff wondered if Collins and Fauci ever read the GBD and why they opted for a “takedown” instead of “vigorous scientific discussion.” Like Fauci, Collins is not fond of debate, and he is not the only public health boss to jump ship.

Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), suddenly retired in April and went to work for the Skoll Foundation. The reason for her retirement wasn’t exactly clear.

CDC boss Dr. Rochelle Walensky described Messonnier as a “true hero” who made “significant contributions” during the pandemic. In a series of telebriefings in early 2020, Messonnier predicted “more cases of a novel coronavirus associated with the ongoing and expanding outbreak in Wuhan, China.”

It was a “new virus” and “at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.”

The virus was “highly contagious,” Messonnier explained, and “there’s essentially no immunity against this virus in the population because it’s a new virus.”

One reporter asked about the link between travelers from China and coronavirus cases in Washington State. “I think that’s an interesting hypothesis,” Messonnier said, but there were “alternate explanations of the same findings.” 

At no point in the briefings did Messonnier deviate from the line advanced by the People’s Republic of China. In fact, Messonnier said, “we should be clear to compliment the Chinese on the early recognition of the respiratory outbreak center in the Wuhan market, and how rapidly they were able to identify it as a novel coronavirus.”

We now know Fauci funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which received a cargo of deadly pathogens from Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory, courtesy of Chinese national Dr. Xiangguo Qiu. Despite these realities, Fauci maintains that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was the product of “natural evolution from an animal reservoir to a human,” which is pure speculation, not a matter of science.

When researchers found evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was engineered in a lab, Fauci pressured them to change their position and parrot his. If the virus arose naturally in the wild, as Fauci theorized, endless variants could suddenly appear anywhere. Omicron was first announced in South Africa, and Fauci in November said Omicron could already be in the United States, where the super-transmissible variant would “find just about everybody.”

Earlier this month, the World Health Organization, a wholly owned subsidiary of China, suddenly announced “Deltacron,” a combination of the Delta and Omicron COVID variants, had been detected in France, the Netherlands, and Denmark. On March 9, MedRxiv announced that “between November 2021 and February 2022, SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants co-circulated in the United States, allowing for co-infections and possible recombination events.”

On March 18, one day before he seemed to hint at retirement, Fauci said the “BA.2 subvariant” could soon increase the rate of infections in America. “We can’t just say, ‘We’re done. We’re going to move on.’ We’ve got to be able to be flexible because we’re dealing with a dynamic situation,” explained Fauci, who would “not be surprised in the next few weeks, given the fact that we’ve begun to open up, and we have an increase in the BA.2 variant, that we’ll be seeing an increase in cases.” 

The key phrase here is “dynamic situation.” The late Angelo Codevilla, who quickly pegged Fauci as a “deep state fraud,” understood the dynamics of dialectical Faucism.

“The ‘softness,’ the very plasticity of the number by which the oligarchy scared the hell out of America in 2020,” Codevilla explained, “makes it possible, presto magico, gradually to ease the fear.” The changing definitions of the term “case” made it possible to substitute the oligarchy’s agenda for COVID reality in the minds of Americans, and “the same dishonest process can be used in reverse.” 

That dialectic empowers Fauci to strike fear and make a case for lockdowns any time he wants, as the situation dictates. With crucial midterms just around the corner, Fauci will not be leaving his job any time soon, if ever. 

Dialectical Faucism is a variant of white coat supremacy—unelected bureaucrats ruling over the people. Executive-level power comes from a mandate from the masses, not some megalomaniac Lysenko figure. If American democracy is to survive, white coat supremacy has to go. Eliminating Fauci’s job would be a good place to start. 

Get the news corporate media won't tell you.

Get caught up on today's must read stores!

By submitting your information, you agree to receive exclusive AG+ content, including special promotions, and agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. By providing your phone number and checking the box to opt in, you are consenting to receive recurring SMS/MMS messages, including automated texts, to that number from my short code. Msg & data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. SMS opt-in will not be sold, rented, or shared.

About Lloyd Billingsley

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Hollywood Party and other books including Bill of Writes and Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation. His journalism has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Spectator (London) and many other publications. Billingsley serves as a policy fellow with the Independent Institute.

Photo: Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images