Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘censorship’

The Trump Ban: The Only Free Speech Zone for American Conservatives Is Russia — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on January 19, 2021

Tim Kirby

This is the moment Russia has been waiting for but it is unknown if those in the halls of the Kremlin even know that it is happening.

The only side that is going to really benefit from Big Tech’s war on free speech will be the Russians. In fact, it is really the Western elite’s deep hubris that has given Russia so many opportunities to become “russurgeant” after being crushed in the Cold War. Decades of questionable wars of “convenience” along with unending threats of destruction for anyone who dares question Washington have created a diverse group of scorned nations all willing to shake hands with Moscow. Making international agreements is a lot easier when no ideological strings are attached and no submission demanded. Thanks to incremental anti-Russian sanctions imposed because the pro-Washington Maidan didn’t take 100% of the territory of Ukraine, 1990s import addict Russia is now living a sober West-free lifestyle actually producing the things it needs to survive under Capitalism. And now, the blanket ban of Right Wing/Conservative figures over Social Media including the President of the United States himself is opening the door for Russian Social Media to explode onto the English-language online space. Without pettiness from within the American elite itself Russia could have never create this #migration of non-Russian speaking users to their sphere of electronic influence. But the big question is will the Russians actually understand this and jump on this truly unique opportunity?

Image: A now iconic screenshot about the state of the 1st Amendment.

It seems impossible to believe but the present “leader of the free world” Donald Trump has been completely banned from the big Social Media giants for his role in the recent storming of Capitol Hill by the MAGAmen. It is important to note that Trump has never admitted to organizing the aggressive protest nor has he been convicted of inciting a riot in a court of law. Twitter, Facebook and others believe he did this and that is good enough evidence for them. For the morally self-righteous accusation is now as good as guilt. Furthermore, this ban extends to “allies of Trump” which could be anyone of the ~80 million who voted for him and foreign people who like his memes. Noted Conservative speaker Ron Paul was temporarily and inexplicably blocked for “violating community standards” which has become coded language for “we don’t like what you have to say on our platform”. Long story short, anyone for any reason at all, real or fake, can be completely and totally banned from the largest public spaces on the internet and the key victims of these purgings will be those with morals that conflict with Big Tech and the Beltway.

Image: Flagrant hypocrisy is the new normal.

The obvious quick fix for Trump, who feels he is battling to save Democracy from a rigged 2020 electoral “loss”, would be to jump to alternative Social Media platforms across the “free market”. No one is stopping famous rich individuals like him from creating competitors to the big dogs right? Sadly for him, growing FB alternative Parler has been removed from the App Store because some people have used it to incite violence or something. The obvious irony of this is that on every platform there are people who say horrible things and call for the deaths of their enemies. But if a platform is big enough, and they agree with the given fatwa then it’s A-okay.

This complete lack of opportunity on America’s diverse free market has given the Russians the chance of a lifetime to pull every English-speaking conservative into their Social Media space. In fact within just 72 hours of this ban madness starting, Russian Social Media/Messenger Platform “Telegram” gained 25 million new users. This is unlikely to be a fluke or coincidence. Furthermore, this new member surge brings the total user base to healthy 500 million. It is important to note that there are only some 250 million+ Russian speakers on the planet and not all of them like to follow intellectual feeds and memes on Telegram. This means that the majority of Telegram’s audience are now not connected to Russia in any way. The platform has reached the critical mass needed to become a mainstay of daily life across the globe.

Image: Telegram needs to add “freedom from woke political repression” as their 4th selling point.

The Telegram product combines the ability to make feeds of content like a Facebook group, make big statements like Twitter and message easily like on Whatsapp. It is a program that stands on its own merits, but it’s promise of complete privacy and offer of freedom of speech to 21st century dissidents on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall Museum is what made it explode. It is the absurd hypocritical policies and witch hunts of Western elites that are handing Russia the hearts and minds of the EU/USA on a platter. If you want privacy, and the right to share the opinions of the American President online, as of today you can only go through Russia.

This is similar to the rise of RT. Most people want to hear their own news from within their own culture, but when the Mainstream Media preaches utter madness that even children find mental in it is not surprising that Russian news media became such a hit. People want high quality, professional, reasonable news media and you are 100 times more likely to see that on a given day on RT than CNN, the BBC or the other big boys. Those media giants had the ball in their hands, and they somehow managed to drop it right into their own end zone for the Russians to just fall on.

Image: Ron Paul shutdown: accident or warning?

During the Cold War, thanks to the dismal state of Soviet media, the youth of the USSR was listening to Radio Freedom and doing anything that it could to jump into the Western media sphere of influence. It was simply the better alternative that gave them breathing room to think about life without a framed Lenin picture in the background. Now it looks like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Donald Trump will be forced onto an expanding Russian side of a social media geopolitical space. This will act like the same type of media “beachhead” that America had in the Soviet Union during the Reagan years.

Telegram is a massive messenger that can replace WhatsApp and Twitter for many users. The Russian equivalent of Facebook, has been more reluctant to accept its destiny. I have approached their management personally bringing to their attention the fact that a massive Western Convservative audience is being repressed and will jump to a new platform for freedom of speech given the knowledge that such a platform exists. Especially when that platform can and does do everything that Facebook is capable of. My words were met with the usual hopeless pessimism that defines the Russian nation. In America we say “if you build it they will come” in Russia the logic is “if it has not been built, it can’t be and we shouldn’t think about it”. Perhaps with this new development they will reconsider my offer. I could use a percentage of a massive advertising campaign to attract the hordes of Conservative shows and blogs that have been deplatformed. VK, now is your time, they are giving you millions of English-speaking subscribers, just fall on the damn ball.

In terms of YouTube Russia does have an equivalent called RuTube (and some Netflix-like services) but it is not even that popular inside of the country itself. This would really be a good time for gents in the Kremlin to invest in a free speech video platform to win hearts and minds in the countries that threaten to kill them most often. As someone who has been deplatformed I would much appreciate the opportunity to make some fair and square ad revenue without the fear of using YouTube no-no words like “Depression”, “Brazil” and “Idaho”.

This is the moment Russia has been waiting for but it is unknown if those in the halls of the Kremlin even know that it is happening. The powers that be are not exactly filled with people from the media. Hopefully some of them will read this and realize just what a glorious opportunity Big Tech and the Democrats have given them. And since everything I write is banned anyways I’d be more than happy to run any attempts to absorb Western dissidents. It is not like these words are allowed to be posted on FB anyways.

© 2010 – 2021 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

MSM calls for “new definition of free speech” – OffGuardian

Posted by M. C. on January 18, 2021

Ives clearly thinks he’s enlightened and liberal and educated, after all he drops references to Kant AND Mills (that’s right TWO famous philosophers), but he’s really not. He’s just an elitist arguing working class people are too dumb to be allowed to speak, or even hear ideas that might get them all riled-up and distract them from their menial labour.

Kit Knightly

Part of the main duty of OffGuardian is to troll through the masses of media output and try and pick up patterns. Sometimes the patterns are subtle, a gentle urging behind the paragraphs. Sometimes they’re more like a sledgehammer to the face.

This has been face-hammer week. In fact, it’s been a face-hammer year.

From “flatten the curve” to “the new normal” to “the great reset”, it’s not been hard to spot the messaging going on since the start of the “pandemic”. And that distinct lack of disguise has carried over into other topics, too.

We pointed out, a few days ago, the sudden over-use of the phrase “domestic terrorism” preparing us for what is, almost certainly, going to be a truly horrendous piece of new legislation once Biden is in office.

Well, the buzz-phrase doing the rounds in the wake of Donald Trump being banned from the internet is “the new definition of free speech”…and variations on that theme.

Firstly, and papers on both sides of the Atlantic want to be very clear about this, Donald Trump being banned simultaneously from every major social network is not in any way inhibiting his free speech.

Indeed none of the tens of thousands of people banned from twitter et al. have had their free speech infringed either. Neither have any of the proprietors – or users – of the Parler app which the tech giants bullied out of existence.

Free Speech is totally intact no matter how many people are banned or deplatformed, the media all agree on that (even the allegedly pro-free speech think tanks).

They also agree that maybe…it shouldn’t be. Maybe “free speech” is too dangerous in our modern era, and needs a “new definition”.

That’s what Ian Dunt writing in thinks, anyway, arguing it’s time to have a “grown-up debate” about free speech.

The Financial Times agrees, asking about the “limits of free-speech in the internet era”.

Thomas Edsall, in the New York Times, wonders aloud if Trump’s “lies” have made free speech a “threat to democracy”.

The Conversation, a UK-based journal often at the cutting edge of the truly terrifying ideas, has three different articles about redefining or limiting free speech, all published within 4 days of each other.

There’s Free speech is not guaranteed if it harms others, a drab piece of dishonest apologia which argues Trump wasn’t silenced, because he could make a speech which the media would cover…without also mentioning that the media has, en masse, literally refused to broadcast several of Trump’s speeches in the last couple of months.

The conclusion could have been written by an algorithm analysing The Guardian’s twitter feed:

the suggestion Trump has been censored is simply wrong. It misleads the public into believing all “free speech” claims have equal merit. They do not. We must work to ensure harmful speech is regulated in order to ensure broad participation in the public discourse that is essential to our lives — and to our democracy.

Then there’s Free speech in America: is the US approach fit for purpose in the age of social media?, a virtual carbon copy of the first, which states:

The attack on the Capitol exposed, in stark terms, the dangers of disinformation in the digital age. It provides an opportunity to reflect on the extent to which certain elements of America’s free speech tradition may no longer be fit for purpose.

And finally, my personal favourite, Why ‘free speech’ needs a new definition in the age of the internet and Trump tweets in which author Peter Ives warns of the “weaponising of free speech” and concludes:

Trump’s angry mob was not just incited by his single speech on Jan. 6, but had been fomenting for a long time online. The faith in reason held by Mill and Kant was premised on the printing press; free speech should be re-examined in the context of the internet and social media.

Ives clearly thinks he’s enlightened and liberal and educated, after all he drops references to Kant AND Mills (that’s right TWO famous philosophers), but he’s really not. He’s just an elitist arguing working class people are too dumb to be allowed to speak, or even hear ideas that might get them all riled-up and distract them from their menial labour.

To season these stale ideas with a sprinkling of fear-porn, NBC News is reporting that the FBI didn’t report their “concerns” over possible violence at the Capitol, because they were worried about free speech. (See, if the FBI hadn’t been protecting people’s free speech, that riot may not have happened!)

And on top of all of that, there’s the emotional manipulation angle, where authors pretend to be sad or exasperated or any of the emotions they used to have.

In the Irish Independent, Emma Kelly says that “free speech” doesn’t include “hate speech” (she’s never exactly clear what part of “go home in peace love” was hate speech though).

In The Hill, Joe Ferullo is almost in tears that the first amendment has been ruined by the right-wing press continuously “shouting fire in a crowded theatre”, citing the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes quote, which so many use to “qualify” the idea of free speech, without realising it hands over power to destroy it completely.

Up until you can show me the hard-and-fast legal definitions of “shout”, “fire”, “crowded” and “theatre”, this open-ended qualification is nothing but a blank canvas, free to be interpreted as loosely – or stringently – as any lawmaker or judiciary feels is necessary.

As an example:

Twitter is certainly bigger and more populated than a theatre, and spreading anti-vaccination/anti-war/pro-Russia/”Covid denial” news [delete as appropriate] is certainly going to cause more panic than one single building being on fire. Isn’t it?

It’s this potential abuse of incredibly loose terminologies which will be used to “redefine” free speech.

“Offensive”, “misinformation”, “hate speech” and others will be repeated. A lot.

Expressions which have no solid definition under law, and are already being shown to mean nothing to the media talking heads who repeat them ad nauseum.

If “go home in peace and love”, can become “inciting violence”, absolutely everything can be made to mean absolutely anything.

The more they “redefine” words, the further we move into an Orwellian world where all meaning is entirely lost.

And what would our newly defined “free speech” really mean in such a world?

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Big Tech’s censorship of talkRADIO is an outrage – spiked

Posted by M. C. on January 7, 2021

In deleting the mainstream British broadcaster, YouTube has crossed a line. Tom Slater
Deputy Editor

The deletion of talkRADIO’s YouTube channel this morning – reportedly due to its platforming of lockdown-sceptical views – is among the most chilling cases of Big Tech censorship we’ve seen yet.

talkRADIO is a mainstream British political radio station, interviewing cabinet ministers on a daily basis, with a sizable social-media presence. Prior to its deletion, its YouTube account had tens of millions of views and more than a quarter of a million subscribers, where its radio shows were livestreamed every day.

But no more. At a stroke, Silicon Valley oligarchs have decided to punish talkRADIO for its editorial decisions, depriving it of one of the primary ways it reaches its audience and presumably a big source of its revenue. That talkRADIO and its output has been memory-holed by YouTube, when it is already stringently regulated by Britain’s own broadcast regulator, Ofcom, makes this even more alarming.

The precise reasons for this stark act of censorship remain unclear, as is so often the case. YouTube has only said the account was ‘terminated’ for violating ‘community guidelines’. A statement released by talkRADIO says it ‘await[s] a detailed response’ from YouTube and its parent company, Google, about the ‘nature of the breach’.

But early reports point to YouTube’s ‘Covid-19 Medical Misinformation Policy’, which bans ‘medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) medical information about Covid-19’.

Such a rule is alarmingly broad on the face of it – not least because, by almost anyone’s estimation, health authorities have got a lot wrong over the course of this pandemic. And in its implementation YouTube has censored dissenting journalists and medical experts, who simply question the efficacy of lockdown, as well as outright conspiratorial cranks.

That a British broadcaster – which has not to date been reprimanded by Ofcom for its content on Covid and lockdown – now seems to have been caught in the net reminds us that we are in a new phase of Big Tech censorship.

Just as with the Hunter Biden case in the run-up to the US election – in which a New York Post exposé was suppressed by Twitter and Facebook, over claims it was ‘misinformation’ – it seems social media is, in effect, extending its censorious writ over older forms of media, which are increasingly reliant on the internet to disseminate their work and make money.

Yes, Google and Facebook are private companies. But they also monopolise large parts of what now constitutes the public square. Anyone who is genuinely comfortable with these tech behemoths setting the terms for acceptable debate, deciding even what is true, simply hasn’t been caught in its crosshairs yet.

But they will. Censorship once it has been justified can only spread. What began a few years back among Silicon Valley firms as a clampdown on hate speech and genuine misinformation on their platforms has morphed into routine censorship of dissent. Now even of mainstream broadcasters.

Those who defend such censorship today give up their right to complain about it tomorrow.

Tom Slater is deputy editor at spiked. Follow him on Twitter: @Tom_Slater_

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Arbitrariness and Censorship Are Back in the West – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on December 31, 2020

Ensuring that they are only neutral carriers, these forums protect the anonymity of their customers. As a result, they all carry among their messages some that provoke the commission of crimes and offenses, insulting and defamatory, and they cover up for their perpetrators. Whereas in the print media, the printer who refuses to reveal the name of his client is considered responsible for the comments he has printed, these “information carriers” have set themselves up as “regulators”.

Upon the invention of printing, many authors challenged the preconceptions of their time. It took four centuries of struggle for the West to finally guarantee freedom of expression. However, with the invention of the Internet, authorship was democratized and freedom of expression was immediately challenged. It may take several centuries to absorb this shock and restore freedom of expression. In the meantime, censorship is back.

When we founded the Voltaire Network in 1994, our first concern was to defend freedom of expression in France, and then around the world.

Today, however, this concept is, in our view, distorted and fought against. We will therefore try to define this ideal further.

The circulation of ideas experienced a considerable boom with the invention of modern typography at the end of the 15th century. It was no longer possible to blindly believe authorities; everyone could make up their own mind.

It was agreed that although debate was indispensable to the evolution of human thought, certain ideas would be harmful to society and should therefore be censored. The authorities had to determine what was useful and what was harmful. But the creation of the famous Index librorum prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books) by Pope Paul IV did not prevent the spread of anti-Papist ideas.

Our view, on the contrary, is that in most cases censorship is more harmful than the ideas it prohibits. All societies that practice censorship end up being frozen. That is why all censorship authorities were once overthrown.

At that point, two great schools clash. Article 11 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) stipulates that the law must determine and repress abuses of freedom of expression, while the First Amendment to the US Constitution (1791) states that no law may limit this freedom.

The United States was a nation in formation, newly emancipated from the British monarchy. It was not yet aware of the difficulties of living in society, but it had already suffered from the abuses of the Power of London. They therefore had a conception of freedom without limits.

It took nearly a century for the French legislature to determine the limits of freedom of expression: provocation to commit crimes or misdemeanors, insult and defamation. Compared to the censorship regime, control is no longer exercised before publication, but after.

Latin countries call defamation the act of reporting derogatory elements without being able to produce proof, it being understood that certain facts cannot be proven (for example amnestied facts, prescribed crimes or simply elements of private life) and therefore are not publishable. On the contrary, the Anglo-Saxon countries only call defamation imputations that can be proven false. In practice, Latin laws require the author to prove what he or she claims, while Anglo-Saxon laws on the contrary state that it is up to the defamed person to prove that the author is telling nonsense.

In either case, the courts can only protect freedom of expression if they are composed of popular juries (as in Belgium) and not of professional magistrates (as in France) likely to defend their social class. This was the great struggle of Georges Clémenceau, which was brought to an end during the Second World War, when governments regained control of proceedings.

The freedom of expression that the West had taken four centuries to develop was totally called into question with the appearance of new computerized techniques of diffusion that broadened the number of authors. As in the sixteenth century, after a short period of flourishing freedom, it is on the way to being completely controlled.

In the past, the French and Americans spoke of both freedom of expression and freedom of the press (i.e. the possibility of exercising freedom of expression in newspapers). Today, however, freedom of the press is often invoked to deny freedom of expression to mere mortals accused of being “conspiracy seekers”, that is to say, uncultured, irresponsible and dangerous to society.

Usually the advocates of prior censorship do not invoke their desire to control the political opinions of the masses, but place themselves in the realm of religion (protecting society from heresy) or morality (preventing the corruption of youth through pornography). The appearance of “social networks” offers a new context for bringing out old arguments.

As established religions are in gradual retreat in the contemporary West, they are being replaced by a new one without God, but with its dogmas (consensus) and clerics (formerly journalists, today the owners of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc.). For example, a referendum should be called in France to enshrine in the Constitution the following sentence: “The Republic guarantees (1) the preservation of biodiversity, (2) the environment and (3) the fight against climate change”. Three meaningless proposals since biodiversity is not a stage, but a process; that the environment has never been preserved, but always modified; and that the climate is not subject to any regulation. There is already talk of censoring this remark, which disturbs the consensus, first on social networks and then in society in general.

Each of us is shocked by the pornography inflicted on children and would spontaneously wish to protect them from it. True, but in the past little peasants used to watch farm animals —not always very tender and moral—, today small schoolchildren are convinced that animals only mate to perpetuate their species and watch films —not always very tender and moral— on their smartphone. Historically, most authoritarian regimes started by censoring pornography before attacking political ideas. It is therefore much less risky for everyone to implement parental control procedures rather than opening the way for the loss of our freedoms.

Last remarks: a big step backwards was taken in 1990 with the European laws repressing “Holocaust denial”, then in the 2000s with the privileges granted to social networks, and finally in the 2010s with the rating agencies.

One would have understood that laws repress forms of rehabilitation of the Nazi racialist regime, but not that they set themselves up as guardians of the Truth. Above all, and this is the most important point, they have reinstated prison sentences for offenders. It is therefore possible today in Europe to find oneself in prison for one’s ideas.

Internet forums (including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or YouTube) have obtained a staggering privilege in the United States in order to conquer the world. They are considered both as carriers of information (like the Post Office) and as regulators of the information they convey; as if the Post Office had the right to read what they convey and to censor what they don’t like. Ensuring that they are only neutral carriers, these forums protect the anonymity of their customers. As a result, they all carry among their messages some that provoke the commission of crimes and offenses, insulting and defamatory, and they cover up for their perpetrators. Whereas in the print media, the printer who refuses to reveal the name of his client is considered responsible for the comments he has printed, these “information carriers” have set themselves up as “regulators”. They always refuse to reveal the names of the guilty parties, but sovereignly destroy the accounts that they judge contrary to their ideas. In doing so, they set themselves up as judges, without laws, debates or appeals.

On May 28, 2020, President Donald Trump took away this privilege, paving the way for regulation by the judiciary, but it is unlikely that the US Congress will transform this Executive Branch decision into law. All the more so since the owners of these forums have already set up rating agencies with NATO for websites that are beyond their control (including NewsGuard). For them, it is a question of burying bad thinkers in the depths of search engines until they disappear. Arbitrariness and censorship are back.

French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.

The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

How to Limit Social Media’s Power without Growing Government | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 27, 2020

Doing what we can to help narrow Section 230 immunities back to a free speech interpretation could solve this while actually reducing government involvement in speech. Naïvely throwing up our hands and hoping some free speech startup someday survives the woke gauntlet is equivalent to quitting the field of ideas while the other side is very much on the march.

Peter St. Onge

Censorship by private companies is a topic that divides free marketers but has suddenly become important in the wake of Twitter and Facebook’s recent attempts to squash a New York Post story alleging corruption in the Biden family. Last year, economist James Miller argued that just as the power company can’t turn off your electricity for being a Trump supporter, social media companies shouldn’t be able to silence you for your political opinions. Others have argued that companies can silence whomever they like because it’s their company. This is a red herring that misses the fact that reform would actually reduce government intervention by narrowing something called Section 230 immunity.

First, what free marketers agree on: regulation of speech by government is both unconstitutional and a very bad idea. From 1949 to 1987, the so-called fairness doctrine was used to utterly silence the Right—Rush Limbaugh was a salesman for the Kansas City Royals until Reagan finally repealed the rule, and Murray Rothbard famously could fit the entire libertarian movement in a living room. The doctrine’s repeal opened the floodgates for talk radio, then Fox News, and now content from the Mises Institute to Praeger University to the Babylon Bee. Given that the vast majority of federal workers remain partisan Democrats—the “Deep State,” if you will, hasn’t changed its colors. Reimposing regulation of speech likely means a return to socialist domination of speech.

However, actual solutions being proposed involve not more regulation, but less. In particular, narrowing an immunity that was granted to online platforms in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This was a special immunity from liability for user-posted content so long as the company was acting as a platform open to all comers—think “common carrier” rules like with the phone company.

Ironically, an original selling point of Section 230 was to prevent censorship by creating a safe harbor so companies could let people express themselves online. And that’s how Section 230 worked for the first twenty years, on the understanding that active censorship would convert an online platform into a publisher with the same liability exposure as, say, a newspaper.

From a business perspective, this platform-publisher distinction was existential for social media companies. Because liability exposure would mean either ruinous lawsuits for crazy things users say, or it would require an army of content-moderating lawyers to meticulously preapprove the 500 million tweets per day that are sent on Twitter. This meant, up until 2016, that social media companies were very careful to maintain a hands-off policy, allowing essentially all legal speech so they wouldn’t lose that shield.

This started changing in 2016, as progressive pressure was brought against social media companies for the sin of giving voice to conservatives during the Brexit referendum, followed soon after by Donald Trump’s election victory. Meanwhile, individual judges increasingly interpreted 230 more broadly as permitting censorship at will. In fact, European regulators actually started requiring censorship for any speech individual regulators personally regarded as too right-wing. This, unfortunately, built a broad censorship capability in social media companies.

Given the existential importance of the shield, social media companies started gradually demonetizing users so they couldn’t earn money on their channels. They moved on to outright bans, again starting gradually by banning intentionally provocative users like former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopolos and Alex Jones of Infowars, and now on to increasingly mainstream users, including, last week, the largest conservative newspaper in the US, the New York Post.

Because a divided Congress won’t rewrite 230, practical reform involves narrowing 230 immunities so that egregious censorship becomes, once again, a bad choice for social media. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas has openly wished for a test case so the court can do this, while market-friendly FCC director Ajit Pai has proposed rules narrowing 230 immunities back to what they used to be.

These solutions highlight that social media censorship isn’t a binary question of market versus regulation, rather it’s a question of an existing government intervention now being used to censor rather than give voice. Indeed, the pure free market position would be repealing 230 altogether, so that Twitter or Facebook face the same liability as the New York Post or, indeed, as you and I.

The alternative to reforming 230, of course, is to leave it to the market. After all, MySpace was the dominant platform until Facebook came along. Unfortunately, the market isn’t as competitive as it used to be. Conservative-friendly social media startups such as Gab and Parler have faced a gauntlet of harassment and choke points, from being denied bank accounts or payment accounts to being denied essential services like web hosting or hacker protection. Given the recent explosion in corporate “wokeness,” this harassment isn’t going away, and in fact is likely to increase.

Beyond harassment and the natural network effects of social media, there are other anticompetitive tactics that hobble new entrants. Facebook itself rose by “scraping” user information from MySpace, something it now forbids, and other social media companies have copied this anticompetitive strategy. Meanwhile, Facebook in particular buys promising competitors like Instagram or WhatsApp, essentially buying an insurance policy against future competition. As a result, the competitive landscape in social media has changed markedly from the MySpace era. Of course, regulators could punish these strategies with aggressive antitrust, but, again, that brings government uncomfortably close to patrolling speech, so it’s playing with fire.

At this point, there is broad consensus that censorship is problematic—not only among libertarians and conservatives. Fully 76 percent of Americans think tech has too much influence on political discourse—just 6 percent think too little. Progressives would never tolerate being silenced by a roomful of activists on Twitter or Facebook, and neither should we.

Doing what we can to help narrow Section 230 immunities back to a free speech interpretation could solve this while actually reducing government involvement in speech. Naïvely throwing up our hands and hoping some free speech startup someday survives the woke gauntlet is equivalent to quitting the field of ideas while the other side is very much on the march.


Peter St. Onge

Peter St. Onge blogs on economics at Profits of Chaos.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Forget About Human Rights And Freedom

Posted by M. C. on October 23, 2020

Why anyone still accepts the official accounts on every mainstream narrative is difficult to comprehend. Too many people are “still taking at face value” all the misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies our newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters. Because lies have turned into the truth, we are heading into times that will be catastrophic for the whole world.

The story of human freedom is coming to an end. We are in a great crisis as a species with madmen (public health officials) believing that we humans need to be controlled to control a virus that has killed few. The head honchos of the world are having a field day with the rest of us. They are letting the air out of the bag of freedom and laughing all the way to the bank.

That is just the beginning of the story. In France, a teacher is beheaded for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in a freedom of speech seminar. It was a clear warning for the teaching staff who will have to shut up or perish. In the Muslim order of things, infidels have no rights, no freedom, and they make sure of that when in power.

In terms of freedom of the press, this week’s hottest scandal is the Hunter and Joe Biden disgrace that last week was published by the New York Post. Lies and treason are now exposed due to a hard drive that Hunter Biden left abandoned, showing the world the ugliest side of politics. Rudy Giuliani said. “There’s some pretty disgusting things this family was involved with. Really disgusting.”

The immediate censorship by social media giants Facebook and YouTube of a mainstream newspaper shows everyone how out of control Silicon Valley oligarchs are. Twitter and Facebook took third-world style steps to limit the distribution of the story of a crime family whose head is running for president.

Calls for the shutdown and even arrest of Zuckerberg and Jack Dorcey are starting to be heard. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced on Oct. 19 that the committee will consider subpoenas for the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook for testimony about the recent censorship. Chris Martenson says, “Social media has now been revealed to be run by petulant sociopaths, whose goal is for you to see what content they want you to see.”

For America and the world, the days leading up to the election will be telling. Nothing is certain except the overreach of social media dead set on shutting down conversations about the Biden family’s involvement with communist China. The problem is the internet is no longer run like the free market. There has been a corporate takeover of the web, as it’s become an oligopoly controlled by a handful of Big Tech companies. What it comes down to is, “Most American citizens don’t want a future where elections are decided by a Google search algorithm, where Mark Zuckerberg can render your business unprofitable with the push of a button, and where Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey decides whether you’re allowed a voice in the public square.”

But alas, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Twitter’s crackdown “nearly doubled” the story’s visibility. “When Twitter banned, and then unbanned, they managed to do the opposite of what they intended,” triggered a massive spike in interest in the story. Want to understand your health situation and learn what best to do to feel better? Schedule a free 15-minute Exploratory Call. »

The headlines keep coming as the mainstream media ignores, downplays the New York Post bombshell on Hunter Biden. Today: ‘Rudy Giuliani Turns Over Alleged Photos Of Underage Girls From Hunter’s Hard Drive To Delaware Police.’

COVID-19 Crushes Freedom Even To Breathe Normally

However, everyone has been concentrating on the COVID-19 scandal that is crushing human freedoms and destroying life as nothing in history ever has. People worldwide are giving up their freedoms without a peep following pandemic policies that are not based on scientific research but on politics and ridiculous assumptions that have proven false.  

More than 34,000 medical doctors and health scientists from around the world have signed a declaration against lockdowns put in place to curb the spread of COVID-19, saying the measures are causing “irreparable damage,” according to an online petition initially created by three epidemiologists from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford.

The loss of freedom during this pandemic is profound. We have even lost the freedom to breathe freely. Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, Ph.D., a Neurologist, and Neurophysiologist, says, “The rebreathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation. There are nerve cells, for example, in the hippocampus, which can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive. The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, issues in concentration, slowing down of the reaction time – reactions of the cognitive system.

“However, when you have chronic oxygen deprivation, all of those symptoms disappear because you get used to it. But your efficiency will remain impaired, and the undersupply of oxygen in your brain continues to progress.” Meanwhile, Twitter has censored a White House coronavirus adviser for suggesting that widespread mask mandates were not a magical defense against the coronavirus.

The hidden tragedy of Covid-19 is about all the people being consigned to an early grave. Government policies are doing everyone a great deal of harm, which is the understatement of the century. Millions will starve, lose their homes and jobs, get depressed, and commit suicide.  

Ultimately the pandemic will bring out the absolute worst in human nature as Nazism and Bolshevism did. Today even capitalism, the right kind that stimulates the individual spirit, has been replaced by big corporate fascism that crushes as many people as possible. No one has the courage or power to stop the slide into the darkness where freedom and human rights no longer exist.


Hawaii “Has Committed Suicide
“Hardly Anyone Is Sick, But We’re All Broke”

The gang of health authorities is deliberately and maliciously taking the world by storm. Politicians ride the wave of this maliciousness, going way beyond their right to tell people what to do. Organizations like Facebook and Twitter do not care about freedom of speech. They are shutting down the free press. Democracy is being destroyed in western countries.

Those Who Are Used To Freedom Will Suffer The Most

In Hong Kong, where a previously free society is being taken over by Communist China, the reports are dire. Hong Kong is in the grip of an alarming rise in the number of young people struggling with emotional distress and suicidal ideation, while an increase in the suicide rate that predated COVID-19 appears to have worsened.A newspaper (infamously controlled by a Communist Party member and billionaire Chinese tech entrepreneur) attributed these conditions to the pandemic. Still, we suspect that Beijing’s brutal crackdown on dissent with its new national security law has contributed to general feelings of malaise in the tiny but densely populated metropolitan area.

Things are getting so bad along many fronts that we hear that Civilization Won’t Decline – It Will Collapse. It has certainly brought us to the point where truth is treason. It seems at least half of people prefer lies over truth, as the man-made global warming story continues to illustrate.

Our top health authorities have shown that they care
more about creating the next massively profitable
drug than they do about actually saving lives. 
Chris Martenson

Dov Fox, director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego, said if a vaccine for the coronavirus is developed, you could be fined and even jailed for not getting it. “States can compel vaccinations in more or less intrusive ways. They can limit access to schools or services or jobs if people don’t get vaccinated. They could force them to pay a fine or even lock them up in jail.”

According to the elite, you have no right to earn a living, run a
business, or exercise any other basic freedoms if the government
arbitrarily decides a particular virus floating around is bad enough.
Joe Jarvis 

It’s a difficult time for anyone who clings to the idea that freedom means the right to think for yourself and act responsibly according to your best judgment. Freedom is trashed as health officials and politicians take it upon themselves to save the world by destroying it.

The question each of us needs to ask ourselves, and one another,
is why do we get so much misinformation about Covid from
public health authorities, political authorities, and press prostitutes?
Paul Craig Roberts

With COVID-19 cases (not actual infections, most are false positives) surging in much of Europe, governments continue to impose greater measures aimed at curbing a second wave. Switzerland announced mask mandates and banned large-scale public gatherings, while Belgium tightened restrictions and curfews, with its health minister warning of a “coronavirus tsunami.” Elsewhere, Italy approved fresh anti-coronavirus controls, Ireland was set to approve its tightest measures since April, and tougher U.K. lockdowns are likely coming to Wales and Manchester.


Freedom is saying what needs to be said.

Even though the actual disease had been contained, health officials need more and more crude falsifications to prove the opposite; their drive for control is just increasing. The criminal medical cartels are censoring all treatments and cures that work to save lives meaning they are letting people die until the holy grail of a vaccine arrives.

At what point in the loss of your freedom do you speak up?

“Millions of lockdown opponents won’t make their position known even to their closest family and friends; taking a position publicly is unthinkable — they would lose social standing, clients, and possibly even their jobs. Thanks to this dynamic, the pro-lockdown crowd enjoys the appearance of majority consensus, and everyone gets…more lockdown. If we all spoke freely, the result would be different,” writes Stacey Rudin.


“How much time needs to elapse before the American people have the right to know the truth behind what their government agencies have been doing within their own country and abroad in the name of the “free” world,” asks Cynthia Chung writing for the Strategic Culture Foundation.

Why anyone still accepts the official accounts on every mainstream narrative is difficult to comprehend. Too many people are “still taking at face value” all the misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies our newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters. Because lies have turned into the truth, we are heading into times that will be catastrophic for the whole world. But many aware and awake people sense the horror that is coming.

In this exciting video, Larken Rose says, “For whatever reason, Covid-19 is very nice to infants and children, compared even to the common flu. Way more children and infants die of the flu every year. Statistically speaking, Covid-19 is not a significant threat to children and babies.”

“If you are young and healthy, your chance of dying from this thing is statistically about zero. At no point did the government ever claim that standing six feet apart and wearing masks and staying home and shutting down businesses would reduce the number of people who get this disease. All of those measures were designed only to slow down the rate of spread, not how many people get it.”

Dr. Mark Sircus AC., OMD, DM (P)

Professor of Natural Oncology, Da Vinci Institute of Holistic Medicine
Doctor of Oriental and Pastoral Medicine
Founder of Natural Allopathic Medicine

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Censorship Rubicon’? Big Tech burying Biden-Ukraine story either wakes up Republicans or drives nail in their political coffin — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on October 15, 2020

When the flow of news and information is controlled on political grounds to the extent it was on Wednesday, it can only lead to irreversible one-party dominance. And here’s a hint for the likes of Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio): Google may give you money, but as the late George Carlin said, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” That one party’s name will start with a “D.”

By Tony Cox,

If Big Tech’s latest censorship fiasco – the suppression of a New York Post scoop that might harm Joe Biden’s presidential campaign – doesn’t spur Republicans to act, they may as well quit pretending to represent their voters.

If even this isn’t enough to trigger so-called conservatives to loosen Silicon Valley’s death grip on America’s public marketplace of ideas, nothing will. All the talk about defending free speech and fighting election interference will be exposed for the meaningless posturing that it is, much like all those years of hearing Republicans campaign on stopping illegal immigration, which they had no intention of doing.

In this case, however, the stakes are more personal for Republican politicians. This isn’t only about throwing their constituents under the bus and giving lip service about political bias while taking donations from the likes of Google and Amazon. This time, the bus is about to run over them and leave tread-marks on their former careers in Washington.

When the flow of news and information is controlled on political grounds to the extent it was on Wednesday, it can only lead to irreversible one-party dominance. And here’s a hint for the likes of Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio): Google may give you money, but as the late George Carlin said, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” That one party’s name will start with a “D.”

The Post article alleged that Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, received an email in 2015 from an executive at Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, thanking him for arranging a meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden. The alleged meeting with the executive, Vadym Pozharskyi, occurred about a year after Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

If the meeting was arranged by the younger Biden and took place as Pozharskyi said, it would belie Joe Biden’s previous statements that he had never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings.

.@andymstone “In the meantime”… Here is a little FACT CHECKING for your THIRD-PARTY FACT— Gio |🇺🇸 (@Cubannator) October 14, 2020

The Biden campaign said no record of such a meeting appeared on the vice president’s “official schedules,” but as Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) pointed out, it didn’t deny the veracity of the emails on which the article was based.

Biden campaign doesn’t deny veracity of Biden emails as reported by @nypost. But @Facebook@Twitter continue the censorship campaign— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 14, 2020

Nevertheless, Facebook rushed to curtail the story’s exposure. Company spokesman Andy Stone, who previously worked for two Democrat lawmakers and two Democrat campaign groups, announced that Facebook would reduce distribution of the article as part of a standard process to reduce spreading of “misinformation” and might do a fact-check of the story. He didn’t say why the article was considered a misinformation threat.

While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.— Andy Stone (@andymstone) October 14, 2020

The next shoe dropped with Twitter, which blocked its users from tweeting links to the story or sending it in direct messages. Those who tried to spread the article got an error message saying the message couldn’t be sent because it was identified as “potentially harmful.”

Wow. twitter going even further than FB and is no longer letting ppl tweet the NYPost story. This is what pops up if you try.— Alex Thompson (@AlxThomp) October 14, 2020

Conservative observers, such as Toby Young, joked that the article was “potentially harmful” only to Biden’s campaign, but the damage was done. As in the case of Facebook, Twitter didn’t make a case for the article being false, but the company said that in addition to concern over potential disinformation, the article was blocked “in line with our hacked materials policy” and a lack of authoritative reporting on where the source material originated.

By which they mean “potentially harmful” to Biden’s electoral prospects, presumably?— Toby Young (@toadmeister) October 14, 2020

In addition to filtering for political disinfo, Twitter says they’re blocking NY Post Hunter Biden story because they block stories with stolen info. Easy enough to test. Let’s see if they allow link to a story in the NY Post on secret audio tape of Trump.— Omri Ceren (@omriceren) October 14, 2020

From Twitter spox: “In line with our Hacked Materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter.”— Shannon Bond (@shannonpareil) October 14, 2020

The emails weren’t hacked; rather, the Post said they were taken off a computer that Hunter Biden left at a repair shop in Delaware. In any case, the various policy explanations were excuses for censoring content that probably would have been gleefully allowed by social media platforms if the article had instead said Donald Trump Jr. was selling access to the White House.

And now Omri shows that Twitter is lying about another excuse they gave for censoring a media outlet that published negative information about its preferred candidate for the presidential election. Twitter is lying. Do not accept their lies.— Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 14, 2020

The Biden family have all made a lot of money when they did not have the skill sets. When real questions start being asked, Silicon Valley appears to close ranks and protect their man. Imagine if this story was about a Trump son?— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) October 14, 2020

Social-media giants are censoring the article because they favor Biden over Trump, and they figure no one will stop them. Mainstream media outlets are cheering on the decision because they, too, favor Biden and have no principles regarding free speech or good journalism. Before Twitter did the job for him, MSNBC producer Kyle Griffin warned that no one should be linking or sharing the Post article because they could discuss its flaws “without amplifying what appears to be misinformation.”

No one should link to or share that NY Post ‘report’. You can discuss the obvious flaws and unanswerable questions in the report without amplifying what appears to be disinformation.— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 14, 2020

Like Facebook and Twitter, Griffin didn’t need to explain how he knew the article was disinformation. Nor did he show the least bit of self-awareness about the media’s spreading of disinformation over the past four years. Adam Jentleson, a staffer for former Senator Harry Reid, even pretended to know that the article was not only disinformation, but also the work of a “Russian propaganda campaign.” Again, no explanation or facts needed.

If you promote the lame NY Post story, you are probably participating in a known Russian propaganda campaign.— Adam Jentleson 🎈 (@AJentleson) October 14, 2020

Twitter also locked out the Post’s account, as well as those of people who shared the story, among them actor James Woods and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany.

READ MORE: ‘Repeal section 230!’ Trump comments on Twitter, Facebook censoring story about Hunter Biden

Conservative and independent commentators, such as Federalist co-founder Sean Davis and journalist Glenn Greenwald, saw the obvious importance and implications of Wednesday’s censorship effort. Rarely is social media discussion as dominated by one topic as it was by the reaction to the Biden story.

The NY Post story was a minor, largely redundant report even if the docs are real.The extreme act of censorship by tech giants to suppress it, cheered on by journalists, is a major story of historic proportions. They always had this undemocratic power; today they used it.— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 14, 2020

Twitter is now banning users from even linking to the New York Post story detailing Hunter Biden’s use of his dad’s office to get rich off of corrupt foreign oligarchs. This is brazen, blatant election interference from illegal tech monopolies trying to steal the election.— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 14, 2020

The danger is that all the talk just fades away and the debacle is chalked up as just another example of anti-conservative censorship and bias. There will likely never be a better poster child to expose Big Tech’s criteria for which news gets covered up and which news gets promoted: If it reflects poorly on Democrats, it’s disinformation, and if it makes Republicans (especially Trump) look bad, it’s golden.

The Trump Administration had 4 years to tackle big tech because they’re clearly working against Republicans and conservatives. Now they’re literally suppressing stories related to the Bidens.— Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) October 14, 2020

As conservative author Mike Cernovich pointed out, “the censorship Rubicon was crossed.” Unless the talk finally becomes action, there’s no point in continuing the conversation.

The censorship Rubicon was crossed. Mark Zuckerberg has declared himself your master and owner. Do you accept this?— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 14, 2020

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Erasing History and Erasing Truth: Censorship and Destroying Records Is the Cornerstone of Tyrants – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

This is not a new phenomenon, as tyrants throughout human history have censored writing and speech in order to protect their power structure. Power is always troubled by any that dare to think, and any that dare to question.


“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

~ John Stuart Mill, On Liberty ch. 2 (1859)

Tyranny requires that the truth be silenced, that real history be erased and rewritten, that speech be restricted, and that individual thought be silenced. In this time of constant turmoil, false flags, wars, civil unrest, and now internal bio-terrorism and manufactured pandemics, a major agenda of the state apparatus is to silence all dissent, and mandate conformity. It is imperative considering the state’s plan for total control that it stifle criticism and retain the power to control the mainstream narrative, while aggressively eliminating all other resistance and questioning. This is the state of the world that we live in today. As things continue to deteriorate, nonconformance cannot be allowed if global governance and a global reset are to be successful.

Current censorship has reached levels not seen in the past, and with all the advanced technology available, this nefarious plot to silence the thinkers and hide the truth could affect all forms of speech. It is getting much more difficult to find truthful information, as those like Google, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and many other venues are eliminating content and access to content at a blistering pace. A day rarely goes by without something I am reading or researching on these sites being taken down or hidden. This can only lead to a world consumed by propaganda alone, thus guaranteeing that only the state narrative will be presented in any mainstream or easily accessible format. This is a dangerous situation, especially considering the likelihood that through vaccination or other methods, much of the population could soon become subject to transhuman experimentation where injectable nanoparticles and chips could be used to alter human behavior.

This is not a new phenomenon, as tyrants throughout human history have censored writing and speech in order to protect their power structure. Power is always troubled by any that dare to think, and any that dare to question. In ancient times and not so ancient times, books were burned to keep the populace from having access to any material that was not acceptable by the throne or by the current political authority. In cases of resistance to ‘high’ authority, many were also killed by the state, and in many cases these ‘cleansings’ were targeted to the educated class, because they had the capability to think critically and express their ideas publically. Those that held power by force of arms would never allow criticism and dissent, because that could lead to hostility and insurrection by the people.

In this time of Covid and this fake virus pandemic, things have changed in part, but much is as it has always been throughout history. This is one reason that history is so important, because regardless of progress and innovation, the underlying motives of the ruling class have changed little over time. Money, power, and control have always been the key concerns of the ruling class, it is just that the methods to keep that power and control have changed. Instead of the sword and guillotine, propaganda and fear have become the primary tools used to fool the people into compliance. In order for propaganda to work, elimination of dissent is imperative. Censorship plays a huge role in any effort to gain support of the masses, because without the possibility to reach the bulk of the people, the truth tellers become marginalized, and are shunned and ridiculed as troublemakers and conspiracy theorists.

The biggest censorship push in history is taking place today, which means that the biggest propaganda push is also underway. This false flag event called the coronavirus pandemic is not about one king seeking control over his subjects, but is about the few attempting to take over the entire planet. This is a global effort that is run by the few top claimed elites, with their tentacles of power reaching almost every country on earth through control of the banks, corporations, foundations, and the entire political class system.

Many have fought and died in order to protect free speech, but all speech is now under attack by the forces of evil. If the globalists have their way, free speech will be lost forever. This is the world of the Internet and computerized system saturation. Censorship today takes on a new look meant to accomplish the same goals as in the past. Blacklisting users, blocking content, and algorithmic manipulation allow for the state to control information, and with that control of information, it stands to reason that the general public will then be easier to manipulate and keep in check. The acceptance of tracking and tracing technology, continued isolation, vaccines capable of altering the DNA structure of individuals, chips and dyes mimicking the mark of the beast, and a continued state of fear will lead to an end of normalcy. The result sought is a new order, a “new normal,” that will be totally controlled by ruling ‘experts’ claiming to be able to sustain you, protect you, appease you, meet all your needs, and eliminate your worries. This system is called technocracy, and is dependent on a societal class fully controlled by an upper class. Does this sound familiar? It should, as that is the want of all tyrants, but in this day and age, it will look much different.

All of this relies on a willing public, and in order to achieve that total compliance on a scale this large, the human spirit must be broken, and love, family, emotion, responsibility, open communication, mass gatherings, and debate must be squelched. Once the pathetic masses accept this ruse, and acquiesce to the mandates coming, they will be transformed into a machine-like state through technological manipulation said to make life easier and more convenient. A totally digitized system is necessary in order to retain constant control. This may sound outlandish, and something akin to a dystopian science fiction novel, but that is because that is exactly what it is. The new world is coming, and by eliminating truth, eliminating our historical roots, and hiding all that is real and honest, what is left is a fantasy, but this fantasy will be deadly.

Seek the truth, seek honesty, ask questions, and believe nothing unless it can be personally verified. Do not allow the takeover of your lives by these monsters claiming to be your saviors.

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches”.

~ Ray Bradbury – “Fahrenheit 451: A Novel,” (1953). p. 209, Simon and Schuster

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional living and writing in Lewistown, Montana. Visit his website.

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Censorship Covers Up Corruption by Big Pharma And Its Doctors – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 10, 2020

“Crewdson has the reasonable view that what people do with taxpayers’ money must be open to public scrutiny. He beleaguered Tabár for several days until he got away with data sheets that described causes of death, which he showed to me. These documents were very interesting and Crewdson worked on them for quite a while but never published anything. Several people have informed me that this was because the Tribune had been threatened with litigation, but Crewdson has not confirmed this. Crewdson published other articles. He noted various irregularities in the Two-County trial, e.g. that 750 women disappeared from published reports of the Kopparberg part of the trial after 1989.”

By Professor Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD

It has become increasingly difficult to publish articles in medical journals that are critical of drugs or the drug industry, or that expose fraud and other wrongdoing committed by doctors. It is also difficult to publish articles documenting that the status quo in a medical specialty is harmful for the patients even though such articles should be warmly welcomed. Particularly in psychiatry, it has been amply documented that guild interests are far more important than the patients’ survival and well-being.1,2

For top general medical journals, e.g. Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, the conflicts of interest are obvious, as the revenue from drugs ads and selling reprints of trial reports constitutes a substantial proportion of their income.3 Top specialty journals have similar conflicts. In addition, they usually have part-time editors who are keen to protect the specialty’s guild interests and prevailing dogmas.

Another problem is the threat of litigation. The BMJ has an insurance that mandates the editors to adhere to their lawyers’ advice; otherwise, the insurance won’t cover the costs of a libel lawsuit.

The corruption of our most prestigious medical journals has been exposed by current or previous editors-in-chief of the top journals, e.g. BMJ, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine.4

Aggravating the situation is the fact that big publishers buy smaller enterprises all the time. This means that there are fewer players on the market, which are therefore easier to corrupt than if there had been many. The five big publishers are Reed-Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis and Sage. They published more than half of all academic papers in the peer-reviewed literature in 2013.5 In 1973, the five largest publishing houses controlled 20% of scientific papers published, but by 2006, that number had already risen to 50%.5

Not surprisingly, there has been increasing concern that journals may be censoring scientific research and stymieing debate, and there are many examples of gross violations of publication ethics and even of journals violating their own rules.2,4,6-8

The HPV vaccines

A particularly egregious recent example was when a Springer journal refused to publish two papers from my research group9,10 even though its editors had accepted them after peer review, and we had paid the fees for open access. Researcher and medical reporter Maryanne Demasi described these events in an article from 13 July 2020.4

By using clinical study reports we had obtained from the European Medicines Agency, we found evidence suggesting that the HPV vaccines in rare cases may cause serious harm.9 This finding contradicts the official reassurances that there is nothing to be worried about but agrees with other independent research, e.g. from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre,8,11 which is a WHO collaborating centre that accepts reports of suspected harms of vaccines and other drugs.

Our systematic review of the HPV vaccine trials9 is much more reliable than the 2018 Cochrane review as we based it on clinical study reports and not on journal publications. It was accepted for publication in Systematic Reviews on 6 March 2019.8 However, a year later, it had still not been published although the journal promises publication within 20 days of acceptance. Our email correspondence took up an astonishing 74 pages,4 and we had been given a total of 20 apologies and a variety of odd, contradictory and implausible reasons why our paper had not been published. One of the excuses was that the journal lacked staff to publish our papers, which was clearly not the case, as Systematic Reviews had published 309 papers during that year.

On 16 February 2020, we wrote to Springer that it seemed they deliberately delayed the publication and highlighted that, “If this is the case, it is scientific censorship that borders on scientific misconduct and fraud. We have a big network with renowned scientists, many connections with the international media, and a strong social media presence. If Springer Nature, BMC and Systematic Reviews fail to publish our papers before 1 March 2020, we are obliged to alarm our fellow scientists and the international and social media about Springer Nature’s, BMC’s and Systemic Reviews’ editorial practices. We will also involve the Nordic Cochrane Centre’s and the Danish taxpayers’ legal teams if the 1 March 2020 deadline is not met.”

This caused Springer to publish our review with record speed, only 12 days later, on 28 February, during which time we checked the proofs and corresponded several times with a high-ranking person, William F Curtis, PhD, Executive Vice President Journals, Medicine & Life Sciences, Springer Nature. We had clearly made Springer nervous.

During the stalling of our papers, we sought an explanation from the journal’s editor-in-chief, David Moher, who put the blame on Springer: “The delay is a substantial embarrassment … We have experienced some internal issues at Springer Nature.”4 Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Mika Brzezinski Opens Pandora’s Box That Could Shutter Google, Twitter and Facebook – Helena

Posted by M. C. on May 22, 2020

In reality, the double standard of Brzezeniski is an interesting psychological profile of a person who believes herself above law, above criticism, above basic moral and ethical ideals as she continues to spew division, hatred, divisiveness, and unapologetic disgust toward sitting President.

As such, FCC regulations could ultimately shut down MSNBC for allowing the vitriol and incitement thus depriving her of her very lucrative 1% salary of well over $2 million per year – as she purportedly champions for the little people while a contributing donor to charity of $-0-???

Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC has called for Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, to shutter President Trump’s account because he is calling out Joe Scarborough for potentially being involved in the murder of his former internist.   In so doing Brzezinski makes name calling of our sitting President free speech vs libel or slander while demanding censorship. Her tirade did not end with simple name calling, but was then infused with a skewer of character assassination, professional assassination, and germ assassination – all while not wearing the dastardly mask she reviles him for not wearing.

Quite a mouthful to be sure. But then Brzezenski has publicly criticized Clinton and Sanders too.   It is unclear if she actually likes anyone. Of course, it bears reiterating that Mika and her first husband James Hoffer divorced amidst allegations she was having an affair with Joe Scarborough… It is also noteworthy that the three books euphemistically ‘written’ by Mika were published by Harvey Weinstein’s Book Company, including her memoire which was published in 2010 when nobody knew her name… which in and of itself has the ability to entirely destroy her feminist career.

Free speech under the First Amendment does allow for name calling, but when that speech can be shown to incite harm or violence, censorship and legal repercussions are available.   For a public media platform censorship is regulated by the FCC.

While the laws are milky to say the least, FCC regulations state that it is ‘illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news’.   This opens a Pandora’s Box within Mainstream Media which has a verbose history of intentionally distorting the news!  And Brzezinski may have just derailed her Liberal team.

To date – the Media have yet to be legally called to the plate for distorting the news.

And that nuance would likely come under much greater scrutiny once President Trump is reelected.   

What is Censorship according to the FCC?   “Censorship in America is the act of altering, adjusting, editing, or banning of any or all media resulting from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the Federal Government of the United States.”   And while Twitter claims it has the right to create it’s own determination of objectionable content, this would seem to directly infringe on FCC rules.   Given Facebook, Twitter and Google are all defined as Public media, they are subject to even greater regulation than a private company and hence could be investigated and possibly prosecuted for their censorship ‘creativeness’.

As such, Mika Brzezinski may have inadvertently opened up a can of worms that could see these public giants defending their tactics in a federal court.   And she would thus be the pawn that was played.

In such a case, it would likely be Jack Dorsey’s legal team chiding Mika to shutter her mouth lest she completely cave the left’s ideal of censorship at will and free speech for one party only.   Something they have coveted for many decades when the CIA took control of MSM during the MKUltra conspiracy turned truthism. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »