Silent coup ‒ but it’s we who are silent by David C. Stolinsky, MD

Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Friday, February 9, 2018

The expression “silent coup” is borrowed from a book about the Watergate burglary, which resulted in the resignation of President Richard Nixon. The author’s thesis was that it was a “set-up” by Nixon’s enemies. I never found this notion convincing, but the idea of a silent coup remained with me.

Silent CoupI believe we are now in the midst of a silent coup. By “silent” the author of the Nixon book meant that the coup was out of sight of the people. On the contrary, by “silent” I mean that the current coup is now in plain sight of the people, but the people are silent. This form of silence is even more dangerous. If people are unaware of what is going on, you can’t blame them. But if they are aware, and just don’t care — then what?

The usual notion of a coup is a takeover or putsch, in which the military overthrows the civilian government. This is one type of coup, but by no means the only type:

Military historian Edward Luttwak says, “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.” Thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état. [Emphasis added.] — Wikipedia

Members of the “elite” talk endlessly about “the people,” but in fact have no respect for them. Lenin claimed to speak for the peasants, but privately he called them “cattle.” Nothing has changed in a century. The leftist magazine Mother Jones adorned its cover with the following:

A confused and frightened citizenry votes against its own self-interest.

But who knows what is best for us confused and frightened peasants? The “elite,” of course. For example, President Obama made no secret of his disregard, even contempt, for both popular opinion and the Constitution. In discussing people who live in depressed areas where factories have closed, Obama declared:

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. — Barack Obama, 2008

Obama believed that devotion to religion or to the Second Amendment was akin to racism and xenophobia. He saw them as primitive notions that have no place in modern society. But without religion, we have no firm basis for ethics — and no sound foundation for objecting to whatever the government decides to do. And without an individual right to own firearms, we have no effective means of defending ourselves from tyrants or other criminals.

Disparaging guns and religion is a devious way of encouraging acquiescence to tyranny. What good is public opinion, if it is not founded on ethical values, and not enforceable by the people on government officials? A confused, disarmed public is the dream of tyrants.

Without an informed, empowered populace, the only other obstacle to tyranny is the Constitution. But a “living Constitution” is like James Bond’s double-0 license — it empowers holders to do anything they please. If you doubt this, consider then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s response to a question as to whether Obamacare was constitutional. She replied, “Are you serious?” — while giggling. That giggle revealed the elitist attitude toward the Constitution: contempt.

This attitude is, in effect: “We can do anything we bleeping please, without regard to the Constitution.” This is akin to saying, “I pay no attention to whether something belongs to me or not. If I like it, I take it. It’s up to the police to catch me if they can.” These people think of themselves as the “elite,” entitled to decide what is best for all the rest of us. I call them high-functioning sociopaths.

We ignorant peasants elected Trump. But what do we know? The self-anointed “elite” believe that Hillary should be President. So before the election, and even after it, they work to undermine Trump by any means at their disposal.

So where are we? The “deep state,” in this case some (not all) top officials in the FBI, the Justice Department, and perhaps other departments, conspired to aid Hillary Clinton and harm Donald Trump, both before and after the election:

● They whitewashed Hillary’s mishandling of highly classified documents on an insecure server. They called it “extremely careless” instead of “grossly negligent,” the standard for criminal prosecution. But if this isn’t a distinction without a difference, what is?

● They overlooked entirely Secretary of State Clinton signing off on selling 20% of our uranium to a Russian-controlled firm, in return for a multimillion-dollar “contribution” to the Clinton Foundation. But if this isn’t bribery, what is?

● They took an unverified dossier, prepared by an avowed foe of Trump and paid for by the Democrats, and presented it to a FISA judge as a basis for a warrant to surveille electronically — wiretap — Trump and his campaign officials. But if this isn’t perpetrating a fraud on the court, what is?

● They used the results of this surveillance to accuse Trump of “colluding” with Russia — to do what? — and to appoint Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate the alleged “collusion.” But if this isn’t “fruit of a poisonous tree,” what is?

● They appear unable to find evidence of “collusion.” So now they may charge Trump or his associates of obstruction of justice — for example, because Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, whom the Democrats wanted fired, or because Trump urged leniency for General Michael Flynn, on the basis of his 33 years of service. But how can you “obstruct justice,” when the process itself was fundamentally unjust in the first place?

That is, the “deep state” may accuse Trump of trying to impede an investigation of a nonexistent crime, by a special counsel who was appointed on the basis of illegally obtained wiretaps, which were authorized by a judge on the basis of a dossier fabricated by an enemy of Trump and paid for by his political opponents. As they used to say on “Law and Order,” this doesn’t pass the smell test.

Subverting the top levels of the FBI and Justice Department was the first step toward dismantling our republic and installing some sort of authoritarian regime. Interfering with a presidential election was the second step. I do not intend to sit passively and wait to see what the third step will be. Silent coups can succeed only if the people remain silent.

What do I want to happen?

● The FISA judges will be furious at being defrauded by the fabricated dossier (four times — getting the wiretap warrant and renewing it three times). They will withdraw the warrant, voiding anything found because of the warrant.

● The FISA judges will refer the DOJ lawyers who perpetrated the fraud to the ethics committee of the D.C. Bar for possible disbarment.

● The FISA judges will write Mueller, explaining that his appointment as special counsel was based on the wiretaps done under the defective warrant, so anything Mueller discovered may not be admissible.

● Mueller will resign as special counsel, not wanting to tarnish his reputation with dubious activities.

● The DOJ will empanel a grand jury to investigate government interference in the presidential election.

● The House and Senate will appoint a select committee to investigate that interference and make sure it never happens again.

But what do I expect will happen?

● The FISA judges will take large doses of antacids for their heartburn caused by being defrauded, but do nothing.

● The DOJ lawyers will retain their law licenses, and at worst retire early.

● Mueller will continue his ill-founded investigation for another year or two, come up with a few indictments for making false statements, then retire, write a book for a million-dollar advance, and go on the talk-show circuit.

● There will be no grand jury, because it would have to be in D.C., where nearly all potential jurors hate Trump.

● There will be no congressional select committee, because Democrats would block any action it might take.

● Emergency rooms will be flooded with patients suffering nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. At first the flu will be blamed, but then it will be discovered that the trouble is caused by seeing Rep. Adam Schiff appearing on TV several times daily.

Written by David C. Stolinsky, MD

Dr. Stolinsky is a retired medical oncologist, scholar, and co-author of Firearms: A Handbook for Health Professionals, published by The Claremont Institute. For other articles written by Dr. Stolinsky, check out our search feature on this website.

This is an expanded version of the article that was originally published on, on February 5, 2018.

Copyright ©2018

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)