The Folly Of Forgiving And Forgetting
A slight change of pace. Three scenarios, two from the world of sport and one drawn from politics, all serve to illustrate the dangers inherent in not holding people to account. At the commencement of the final race of the 2021 Formula One season, Hamilton of Mercedes and Verstappen of Red Bull were dead level on points. It had been a turbulent season, marred by numerous incidents between the two, usually as a consequence of the latter's aggression and ruthlessness which were, by then, well-established traits. Mercedes had been the dominant team for the previous seven years, winning both the constructor's and the driver's championship every year. Hamilton now had seven world championships and a record number of race victories. Verstappen, the younger man by a dozen years, was seen as a champion-in-waiting. For either driver, finishing ahead and in the points would be sufficient to take the title.
Both were on the front row of the grid, but Hamilton got the better start, pitted on lap 14 (out of 58) for hard compound tires and stayed out on them for the duration. By lap 52, he was managing an eleven second lead over his rival and five lapped cars separated them on the track. The championship was almost his. There were more lapped cars behind Verstappen. Then, on the same lap, one of the back-markers put his car into the wall, showering the track with debris and, as demanded by the regulations, a safety car was deployed which the drivers were obliged to follow at a reduced speed. Clearing the track took far longer than anticipated and the Red Bull took advantage of the slower speeds and pitted for fresh tires without losing track position. Hamilton, not unreasonably, stayed out, calculating that there was insufficient time left for Verstappen to overtake him.
On lap 57, with the track finally clear of detritus, the race director (Michael Masi) made the fateful decisions that robbed Hamilton of his eighth crown. First, he allowed the cars between the two principal protagonists to unlap them selves by overtaking Hamilton, but did not do the same with the lapped cars behind Verstappen. This put the Red Bull right behind the Mercedes. He then removed the safety car a lap earlier that the rules demanded and restarted the race. The inevitable was then allowed to unfold as the Dutchman used his fresh rubber to go effect, immediately sweeping past Hamilton on his way to winning his first title.
So, two rules were broken and an entirely artificial shoot-out was contrived - a shoot-out where only one of the contestants had a weapon. So far, so incompetent. It subsequently emerged that the race director of Red Bull themselves was also complicit – he had been in communication with Masi while the race was proceeding under the safety car and had urged him to pursue the incorrect course of action, to the benefit of his own driver. Mercedes were apoplectic and immediately appealed to the race stewards. However, the narrative was about to be baked in.
The stewards dismissed the appeal on inappropriate grounds, holding that the rules state that the race director was in sole control of the deployment of the safety car (which was true), while simultaneously ignoring the other rules that the race director was obliged to follow, regardless.(1) From that point onwards, it seemed certain that, no matter what further evidence of malfeasance or incompetence came to light, there was no way that the FIA was going to soil its own nest.
The subsequent report on the incident was only published on the eve of the new season, possibly in a bid to ensure that Hamilton and Mercedes remained in the fold – both the driver and the team principal had boycotted the end of season awards ceremony. It was simply an (unsuccessful) attempt to walk a tightrope. It had to acknowledge the obvious problems with Masi's decision-making while doing nothing to apply retroactive justice. The report does this by insisting that Masi nonetheless acted in good faith,(2) an assertion which is purely subjective and that has no bearing when considering whether the rules were followed .
“It also stresses that the Abu Dhabi race result is "valid, final and cannot now be changed."(3)
presumably because they didn't want to change it, rather than because they couldn't. Of course, the result can't be considered valid if it was arrived at with the aid of malpractice. The race director was subsequently sacked and there was a one word change to the rules (replacing the word “any” with “all”), which had absolutely no effect on the meaning of the regulation, but which served to camouflage the fact that there had been no ambiguity in the wording to begin with as well as providing the fiction that it was the rules themselves that were to blame. The majority view, outside the confines of the FIA, saw things rather differently;
“It’s obvious today, just as it was obvious in live time, that under unreasonable pressure amid a complex set of circumstances an invalid call had been made by the race director which did not meet the FIA’s own sporting regulations and that in reality therefore the result of the race was invalidated.”(4)
The saga was not yet over. It subsequently transpired that Red Bull had also breached the newly implemented budget cap for the 2021 season. The FIA delayed this report also and were then less than forthcoming as to the chain of events. The team, as is their wont, denied any wrongdoing until they had negotiated their punishment with the administrators which is a novel approach seemingly limited to Formula One. They were fined $7 million for an alleged overspend of just under $1.5 million but, by this point, believing in the best offices of the FIA is problematic, so who (other than the parties concerned) really knows the extent of the breach.(5)
The operational benefits to them are difficult to quantify although, in a season when the difference in performance between Mercedes and Red Bull was miniscule, any such benefit was likely pivotal. As Hamilton said,
“What I can say is I remember last year in Silverstone we had our last upgrade and fortunately it was great and we could fight with it,” said Hamilton last week, before the findings were published.
“But then we would see Red Bull every weekend or every other weekend bringing upgrades. They had, I think, at least four more upgrades from that point.
“If we spent £300,000 on a new floor, or adapted a wing, it would have changed the outcome of the championship naturally because we would have been in better competition in the next race if you add it on.”(6)
In 2018, the Australian cricket team toured South Africa. It would be fair to say that there was little love lost between the teams, a circumstance that was largely the result of the simultaneously aggressive and sanctimonious attitude of the Australians, who seem to believe that they are the moral guardians of the game, so much so that they are responsible for identifying the line beyond which lies opprobrium – for all. Regrettably, history records that unpleasantness and the Australians are deeply intertwined and there is usually some form of drama often, but not exclusively, of the verbal kind. By the time of the Third Test, there had already been several flashpoints, with David Warner (the Australian opener) to the fore.
Neither team had been able to get the ball to reverse swing (a particularly potent weapon, as the ball moves very late), which happens when one side of the ball is scuffed up. Warner was under scrutiny, as there was some suspicion that the bandages on his fingers were abrading the ball illegally, but it was another Australian, Cameron Bancroft, who was filmed taking a piece of sandpaper from his pocket. When the images appeared on the big screen at the ground, the Australian coach spoke by walkie-talkie to a reserve player who then relayed a message onto the pitch, the content of which is contested.
Altering the condition of the ball with sandpaper is comprehensively against the rules of the game. That the Australians were attempting to cheat was, therefore, impossible to deny, but the press conference after the day's play was probably more revealing of team culture than even the images on the screen. The captain (Steven Smith), while acknowledging that blatant cheating was a bad thing and that it had happened on his watch, still believed that he was the man to take the team forward. The coach was also minded to stay. This was the first (failed) attempt at a limited hangout, which demonstrated an almost total failure to understand the gravity of what had occurred. The one thing that was successfully established was that only the “leadership group” knew of the plan. The composition of this group was never divulged.
Nonetheless, we were instructed to believe that the incident was a one off – naturally – and that it was cooked up by Warner and Bancroft alone. The captain was said to have known that sharp practice was afoot, but deliberately averted his eyes. This version of events has been adhered to, by the administrators ever since, despite the subsequent fallout and the resignation of the coach. The ICC (the international body that rules the roost globally) let Cricket Australia “investigate”.
Three players received bans from cricket (Warner also received a lifetime leadership ban). However, from the very beginning, anybody who understands cricket knew that more than three players were involved. We were asked to accept that the players who would actually benefit from changing the condition of the ball had no input or foreknowledge. Further, they were allegedly unaware of the relatively sudden deterioration in the condition of the ball. This is wholly implausible. Asserting that the coach was not involved is also stretching credulity.
I followed the story as it developed and the almost complete absence of informed debate was glaring. Nobody wanted to ask the obvious questions. Nobody wanted to look under stones. The questions that I and every other cricket follower with no skin in the game wanted answers to were simply not asked. The focus was exclusively on the three miscreants, as it slowly dawned on them that they had been hung out to dry while the rest of the team escaped scot free. Or, perhaps, that was part of the deal that they accepted, in return for keeping their mouths firmly shut. Four years later, two of the three are back playing for the Test side.
The entire affair appears to have been choreographed and each participant played his part. The rest of the team swore blind that they were innocent bystanders and were never seriously challenged on that assertion. They even attempted to shut down any debate about their role;
"We respectfully request an end to the rumor-mongering and innuendo. It has gone on too long and it is time to move on."(7)
The sacrificial lambs kept shtum, the head of Cricket Australia retired gracefully while the organisation itself monitored our collective ability to suspend our disbelief. And there it might have stayed. The empty rhetoric about changing the team culture, ensuring it never happened again etc etc was intended to be the last word on the subject. Recently, however, Warner attempted to appeal his lifetime leadership ban and Cricket Australia made a Horlicks of it; the process that they proposed would have led to a public rehashing of the incident and a regurgitation of the party line. The player was not happy. His lawyer was even less impressed. He gave a radio interview which contained the following tidbits;
"You'd have to be a blind black Labrador to not realize there was far more than three people involved in this thing .... David Warner ... has shut up, he protected Cricket Australia, he protected his fellow players on my advice, because at the end of the day no one wanted to hear any more of it...
"Two senior executives were in the changing room in Hobart, and basically were berating the team for losing against South Africa...and Warner said we've got to reverse swing the ball, and the only way we can reverse swing the ball is basically by tampering with it. So they were told to do it."(8)
Interestingly, this incident was alleged to have occurred in 2016/17, not on the return tour fifteen months later, which tends to suggest that the team had been ball tampering prior to the Newlands Test. This statement didn't even cause a ripple in the mainstream media. Bancroft himself had implied that others were also involved when he was later put on the spot;
"Yeah, look, all I wanted to do was to be responsible and accountable for my own actions and part. Yeah, obviously what I did benefits bowlers and the awareness around that, probably, is self-explanatory..."(9)
Former players had already had their own say, which didn't make an impression, either, not even in the foreign press who might be expected to be less partisan;
"They [CA] did not want to go any deeper than that superficial example of ball-tampering. They did not investigate to see whether it was systemic had it been going on and on and on.”(10)
So, what of it? Why would these incidents be worthy of note? Whatever is said in public, whatever narrative is pursued, is untrue. Cricket Australia, the players themselves and the rest of us are all living a lie which is, simultaneously, an open secret among aficionados of the game. Most of the current team were playing at Newlands four years ago. To the cricket loving public in Australia, those players have no credibility and support for the team has waned considerably. Additionally, the cancerous cricket culture that exists Down Under was not addressed. Even junior cricket has huge issues with physical assaults and verbal abuse.(11) The cover-up and limited hangout has accomplished a continuation of the same rancid atmosphere. The next national coach, another ex-player, had form for knocking of the bails and claiming that a batsman had been bowled.(12)
This incident and the Formula 1 shenanigans differ inasmuch as we probably know almost all the details of the latter and the spinelessness of the administrators cannot be obscured. The ball tampering scandal, by contrast, cannot be spoken of openly and honestly, as it is clear that much has been kept from us. Thus, the officials (in public, at least) get a free pass and all concerned are obliged to participate in yet another Great Pretending. The lack of public enthusiasm for the team is, naturally, mystifying to Cricket Australia, although not to anybody else. The fans didn't much care for the team's behavior prior to Newlands; the fact that the boil was not lanced when the opportunity presented itself is not lost on them. In the absence of remorse and the continued presence of lies and obfuscation, there can be no forgiveness.
Formula 1 clearly didn't follow the rules in 2021, but the fact of the matter is that once Verstappen crossed the line, the script was written. Nobody had the courage to do the right thing, even though there were three further opportunities to man up; the race stewards' inquiry, the subsequent FIA report and then when it was discovered that Red Bull had breached the budget cap for the year, as well, thus gaining an advantage for that year and at least the next one, too. Each time, the FIA bottle it. Indeed, it became clear that no deleterious revelation of Red Bull conduct, no matter how egregious, would be enough to change the result of that final race. Justice was not going to be done.
How can this outcome possibly be a valid one? The report identified errors which were enough to change the outcome of the race (and, therefore, the championship). The FIA removed the race director from his role and yet, still, they left the result intact. They still didn't correct the original mistake. How is that morally defensible? Or logical, even? It's not possible to walk that particular tightrope without falling. If an admission of a mistake is made and action is taken to prevent a re-occurrence, then failing to correct the original mistake can only be as a result of weakness or corruption. It is so obviously inconsistent as to be laughable. It's a decision that destroys credibility. And yet, that's what has happened.
And what are the other ramifications? The same as they are when the rules are broken and inadequate action is taken as a result. Now that the downside has been identified as being pretty much non-existent – not just because of the racing incident, but also due to the pathetic punishment for the salary cap breach – not only will cheating now be seen as effective, it will also become more widespread. Not necessarily because all parties are inherently corrupt and not necessarily because they even want to cheat, but because if they don't, they'll fall behind.
The same dynamic, with a slight twist, is also at play in the charade that is the US electoral system. The Democrats (and even the Republicans in primary season) cheat like a cheap Japanese watch. They cheat in many different ways, including manufacturing ballots, rigging the voting machines algorithmically and through ballot harvesting in states that don't permit the practice. For the Left, there is very little downside. They monopolize the federal employment ranks and, increasingly, the judiciary – not that matters will often get that far. The downside of election fraud, for Democrats, is vanishingly small. And so, they fill their boots, steal elections and get away with it.
The 2020 presidential election was a particularly flagrant example. We just look at one state to realize that. A swing state. Wisconsin is one of the most corrupt and, before I delve into the detail a little, it's worth recalling that the Republican Party, even in states where it holds the balance of power in the legislature, is no match for election officials, who are overwhelmingly left leaning.
Wisconsin must have something in the water. It has the largest cohort of centenarians in the world because, in mid 2021, there were 569,277 voters with a birth date of 1/1/1918; in reality, this cohort is a human slush fund ready to call on in an emergency, when the result is not going to be achieved legitimately. Of these, 119,283 are what is termed 'active voters' – those who were required to vote to ensure that the blue party won, presumably – and 115,252 voted in November 2020.(13) This in a state that Trump was comfortably winning until some middle of the night voter dumps (around 211,000) that favored Biden to the tune of 80.2% of the votes.(14)
Furthermore, 23,000 voters in just one county had the same telephone number.(15) 29% of the voting population were added to the rolls in the ten months leading up to the election – a total of 957,977. That's an average of 22,000 new voter registrations a week, half of them online.(16) Trump 'lost' the state by a little over 20,000 votes. I think it highly likely that he was cheated out of hundreds of thousands of votes.
Figure 1
But the GOP can't bring themselves to acknowledge the flagrant nature of the outright fraud; that would be breaking character. Their role is to lose gracefully and silently. So they focus on the issue of ballot harvesting instead. The solution, according to those conservatives who self-identify as the hard nosed, street-fighter wing of the party is to retaliate by doing a spot of ballot harvesting themselves. Of course, without control of the voter rolls and the voting machines as well, they will inevitably come up short. They can only harvest actual voters; the Democrats can raise the dead, if they need to. Republicans know this, which is why even the “street-fighters” are still controlled opposition. As with F1, once the rules no longer matter, it's a race to the bottom.
There is another consequence; if the regulatory authorities reveal themselves to be partisan or weak and there are genuine competitors in play (so F1, not American politics), there will eventually be a move towards self-policing. In Formula 1, that might involve machinations of the dangerous kind, such as taking another car out at a corner. Or, alternatively, competitors might leave the sport if they feel that it is corrupt. Either way, the price will be high.
There is yet another recent, glaring example with the 'pandemic' response. Lately, as it has become just a little more difficult to avoid acknowledging some of the more obvious lies and omissions, there has been a marked tendency for those in the firing line to engage in some special pleading. They would like to exploit the reasonable person's aptitude for forgiving and forgetting, so that they can remain in place and do it all over again. They'd like this to happen despite the fact that they have no intention of expressing any remorse, nor have they any appetite for a reckoning; truth and reconciliation commissions are definitely not their bag.
Except, they don't really want to be forgiven and forgotten or, more accurately, they haven't really thought the whole thing through properly, because they don't seem overly exercised by the reality of our anger and contempt. Yes, it's a topic that meets their smell test and can be expanded on in op-eds, but do they really care? It's hard to conclude that they do. They'd either have to care about what we think by dint of them being decent people – which they clearly aren't because, if they were, they wouldn't have imposed measures that ruined lives when there was no evidence to support the courses of action that they took and plenty that contradicted them – or they would have to fear us.
Some commentators expend considerable quantities of ink in championing the latter proposition. I suppose that it's possible that they do, but there is precious little indication that it is so. One could make the case that they must feel that way as there are a lot more of us than there are of them, but that seems like an exercise in projection, assigning our logical thought processes to them. As it's already pretty clear that our way of thinking, our moral framework and our personalities are likely diametrically opposed to theirs, this must be a fundamental error. Bullies and zealots don't think the same way that we do – they see weakness where we see decency, humility and a desire to live and let live. Our resultant ongoing passivity encourages them in their belief that they need not pay us any mind.
Here, it's instructive to return to the “not dying in a ditch/hill to die on” conundrum. When dealing with reasonable people, who are our equals, it is not useful to insist on one's own way at every juncture. This will be perceived as tedious behavior, perhaps indicative of elevated levels of insecurity. However, this is clearly not a productive course of action when interacting with a domineering, bullying ruling class, one which already exercises control and which is prepared to use its advantage in any way that it see fit, regardless of the rights and wrongs. Indeed, moral questions seldom trouble the elites. Instead, it's all about what they can get away with.
If we behave in a reasonable fashion within this dynamic, we are inviting disaster. In fact, giving any ground at all is often a terminal error. The tendency to compromise initially, with a view to perhaps holding our ground on the big stuff when it comes up, is calamitous. When dealing with bullies, any initial weakness (as they see it) will encourage them in the belief that we can always be defeated, on any issue at any time, if they just keep pushing hard enough. Therefore, when we finally locate the hill we're going to die on somewhere down the road, they will refuse to believe that, this time, we actually mean it.
They will continue forcing the issue and, as they occupy the dominant position, they will have the ability to do so. They won't fear us, as they might have had we demonstrated our mettle at the outset. What's more, they will actually be angry that we are resisting. They will feel aggrieved that we have caused them to miscalculate by being inconsistent in our responses. And, in way, they'll be right, because the typical reasonable person recognizes their mistake early on in this type of relationship, but they usually persist with their reasonableness anyway – perhaps partly out of misplaced decency (the self deluding belief that inhabiting the moral high ground is somehow an end in itself), or because they sense that the act of resistance, when they eventually perform it, will unleash such a level of unpleasantness that they may wilt before the onslaught.
The path of least resistance is always the road most traveled. The FIA, in its collective spinelessness, is hardly atypical. Yes, there are some differences between the reaction to the 2020 election fraud and the actions of the F1 officials on race day. For one, there is no suggestion that the race director or the stewards were corrupt and therefore engineered a situation whereby the title was handed to the favored candidate. Rather, it seems probable that Masi wished to avoid finishing the race under the safety car (perhaps feeling that it was an inappropriate way to end the season) and, encouraged by Red Bull, therefore went rogue. The stewards then lacked insufficient intestinal fortitude to correct an obvious error, perhaps fearing the howls of anguish from the execrable Horner. Red Bull, in a general sense, strike me as a pre-eminent example of an entity lacking a moral compass.
The 2020 election, by contrast, involved huge fraud and corruption perpetrated both by the structure that was supposed to referee the contest and by one of the candidates. The outcome wasn't a mistake that was not then rectified. For the equivalent scenario in F1, Red Bull and the FIA would have had to conspire to deny Mercedes. That's not what happened. So, 2020 (and 2022) is an extreme example of the bullying of reasonable people by an entity that has never been challenged by those whose job it is to do so.
It has become painfully obvious, with each new surrender, that the Republican Party is part of the problem, not a potential solution. The correct approach would be to expose the manner in which elections are stolen ahead of time, not to try and recover lost ground after the event when every judicial effort is bound to come before an official who is as mindful of their position as the F1 stewards clearly were. Not that the Republican establishment has ever shown any inclination to get involved in any such challenges – wronged candidates have had to fund appeals themselves.
There are other examples that are just as damaging – the Emergency Use Authorization, the definition of a vaccine, informed consent, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. A failure to engage right at the outset of the misinformation saga. The failure to call out the climate change scam. The common denominator is that dominant institutions in our societies have been allowed to propagate obvious lies and then bully us into accepting them – or, at the very least, not contesting them.
That's not to say that it is the ordinary person, such as ourselves, that has always been the one lacking the will for the fight although, as a collective, we have definitely not done our bit as often or as forcefully as we should have. Those that nominally represent our interests have conspicuously failed to perform that most fundamental of tasks, too. But I'm sure we've all met numerous people who are prepared to identify the correct source of our woes, but who then pose the intentionally rhetorical question “But what can I do?” Perhaps you've even expressed similar sentiments. The answer is that, unless we try and find the mechanism which allows for effective resistance, we are going to lose our freedoms as we know them. Would you rather go down swinging or simply assume the position and brace for impact? Those are the only two available options – other than winning.
“Errors”, whether deliberately inflicted upon us or otherwise, need to be corrected and must also be seen to be corrected. Justice must be done. Those at fault must be dealt with – and not on their terms, either. Questions of intent and remorse must be weighed in the balance. A dash of Old Testament, not a turning of the other cheek. At least, that's what should happen. It hasn't yet and, if we leave it to the powers that be, it never will. The Deep State isn't going to kneecap itself and the nominal opposition is too compromised and milquetoast. I get the strong feeling that we are rapidly approaching the tipping point, at least in part because of the societal structures that ought to protect us, but which are simply enabling the bad actors.
Yet, if we are to somehow find ourselves again, it is the uncorrupt version of those same systems – the judiciary, parliamentary democracy, academia and so forth – that we will need. Therefore, I think that our initial defeat seems inevitable as it's not until we abolish the political system as we know it, dismantle the likes of the FBI and the CIA (or the equivalent where you are) and reinstate a genuinely responsive representative system that we can restart the cycle. And that's going to take time, if it's to be done without the aid of a revolution.
Changes on this scale cannot be wrought without widespread support and it seems likely that there will be a considerable time lag in that regard – at least a couple of years, probably a good deal longer, given the recent examples of the 'pandemic' and the 2020 election and the silent majority's dawning realization that the government is not their friend. It may be that people start drawing the logical conclusions, which is that – where government is concerned – we should be extremely skeptical of everything they say and do.
After all, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. It's always possible that “their” window of opportunity is decreasing with each new revelation, but it seems to me that any lag time, no matter how short, is all that is required at this stage. Our ability to extract ourselves from a digital tyranny, for instance, seems extremely circumscribed. It'll be no use protesting once we're under the yoke. The scheme needs to stalled before it can be imposed, but we are stragglers in the information war. Resistance from the soft center cannot be relied upon.
Identifying a problem then imposes a duty to at least try and overcome it. There are then at least three possible routes to take. One could adopt the F1 (or Cricket Australia) mindset and twist oneself into logically indefensible shapes and pay no heed to the likes of me pointing out the nature of the fudge. One could knowingly misidentify the problem and then pretend that one is going to solve it, like the GOP does with election fraud. Or, one could do the correct thing and deal with it properly. Of course, avoiding the problem entirely or selecting another problem instead then leads to the creation of a fantasy world – a damaging fantasy world because, we find ourselves in a position whereby the original problem is still with us, the ability of the problem to be replicated still exists and, in addition, we may have demolished something that was never the problem to start with.
An exemplar of that last approach is, once again, the GOP – the Republican establishment preferred to blame Trump for his defeat in 2020 and ignore the evidence of fraud. So, they turned away from the populism of America First, despite the President increasing his vote by nearly 10 million, and back towards lily-livered centrists who do not inspire the political base. Then, in 2022, the pattern of Democrat malfeasance continued and this time (as well as more Orange Man Bad rhetoric), there is much talk of failing to get out the vote or the negative impact of the repeal of Roe v Wade. By now, the Republicans are two standard deviations from the norm; to be fair, this is by design, but the example serves to illustrate the knots that one must tie oneself in if this option is adopted.
The rules must mean something and there must be consequences when they are broken. The director of F1 had this to say when the budget cap was introduced;
"This has teeth. If you fraudulently breach the financial regulations, you will be losing your championship. It has serious consequences if teams breach these regulations."(17)
Well, they clearly don't. The same goes for the Newlands 'investigation'; both the FIA and Cricket Australia were allowed to police themselves and, to nobody's surprise, they failed to do so properly. The same goes for the 'pandemic' response – the usual suspects are still in situ. They have not been obliged to express remorse, they cannot therefore be forgiven and we must not forget. At some point soon, there will need to be a reckoning.
I am again put in mind of the “match and raise” imperative. It isn't enough to push back, to challenge, to regain some sort of parity in the battle to retain our freedoms. We have to match and raise, or face the prospect of forever chasing, always either under the cosh or momentarily evens, always playing defense. We need to put them on the back foot; to call out the climate change scam, to unequivocally state that Pfizer and Moderna are manufacturing a bio-weapon and that the public health officials that have been gaslighting us for the past three years are criminals and should be treated as such and that “they” can shove their Digital ID, digital currency and credit score where the sun don't sun. Anything less and we're screwed.
Citations
(4) https://the-race.com/formula-1/our-verdict-on-the-fias-abu-dhabi-2021-report/
(16) https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
Figure 1
Yes, indeed.
Lewis was robbed - It grieves me to think about that race...