Existential matters and historical perspective: a conversation with Dr. Garcia on his podcast
Discover more from Tessa Fights Robots
Existential matters and historical perspective: a conversation with Dr. Garcia on his podcast
Plus, Missouri v. Biden
I am working on a story that is bigger than life. I think I accidentally figured out an important detail of Big Pharma’s dark secret, hidden in plain sight. If my theory is correct (I believe it is), and people learn about it, mainstream-minded folks will join the dissidents in a massive cry, from here to the sky, about what has been done to us.
We’ll see what happens. In the meanwhile, I had a very interesting philosophical conversation with Dr. Emanuel Garcia on his podcast. Dr. Garcia is a lovely, brave human being who has my greatest admiration. Over the years, I’ve interviewed him twice (here and here).
And just because I am excited about this bit of good news from July 4, here are two accounts of Missouri v. Biden. Time will tell if this sticks but so far, so good.
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty:
Judge Terry Doughty released on Independence Day his 155-page ruling on our request for a preliminary injunction against the government’s censorship regime.
The entire document is worth reading for those who want to dig into the details, but in short, he granted nearly all the provisions in our request, placing strict limits around any communication between government officials and social media companies. If such communications continue, they will be subject to subpoena in our case and could implicate the actors in criminal liabilities for violating the injunction.
And here’s from Dr. Meryl Nass:
Note to readers: If you are in the position to do so, I encourage you to become a paid subscriber or donate. I love you in any case, but it helps A LOT. Thank you from my heart for your support!
Existential matters and historical perspective: a conversation with Dr. Garcia on his podcast
hate to spoil the party but the injunction in missouri v. biden is hardly a victory. it's like one of those journal articles where the data says that the shot killed everyone who took it, but the authors still conclude that more study is necessary since that's the only way they could get the journal to publish their findings.
"The following actions are NOT prohibited by this Preliminary Injunction:
(1) informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or
criminal conspiracies;
(2) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats,
extortion, or other threats posted on its platform
(3) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies about criminal efforts to
suppress voting, to provide illegal campaign contributions, of cyber-attacks against election
infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections;
(4) informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or
security of the United States;
(5) exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies
or views on matters of public concern;
(6) informing social-media companies of postings intending to mislead voters about
voting requirements and procedures;
(7) informing or communicating with social-media companies in an effort to detect,
prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber activity;
(8) communicating with social-media companies about deleting, removing,
suppressing, or reducing posts on social-media platforms that are not protected free speech by the
Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
now, define "criminal conspiracy," "threaten national security," or for the biggest laugh of all, "criminal efforts to suppress voting."
you could drive a pretty big truck through the holes in this.
ok now i'm gonna listen to you and manny g. rip the roof off :)
Another wonderful interview. Thank you both! I felt on common ground listening to this. Reinforcing....not sure how to put it, but thank you so much!