MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘censorship’

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.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/no_author/censorship-in-medical-journals-is-harmful-also-for-patients/

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-???

https://helenaglass.wpcomstaging.com/2020/05/21/mika-brzezinski-opens-pandoras-box-that-could-shutter-google-twitter-and-facebook/

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 »

Kafka comes to The Hague – Mail Online – Peter Hitchens blog

Posted by M. C. on February 19, 2020

As we shall see, he has had long and distinguished service at the OPCW and was highly-regarded by them right up till the moment when he challenged attempts to exclude his work from consideration.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/02/someone-has-been-telling-lies-about-a-and-b-kafka-comes-to-the-hague.html

| PETER HITCHENS

The Show Trial of A and B.

Kafka comes to The Hague

Why you should be worried

You might think that when two honest men, with nothing to gain and much to lose, speak the truth about a major scandal in a body which might one day decide between world war and peace, that the world would immediately do the right thing.

You would be utterly wrong.

In the movies, the dissenters would quickly be recognised as the heroes of the story, their bosses would admit to doing wrong. The media would celebrate their courage. And the matter would be set right.

But the case of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) shows that it would be foolish to expect that to happen. The OPCW is an agency of the UN. It exists to ensure impartial and rigorous inspection of the alleged use of chemical weapons. But it is now charged with being neither impartial nor rigorous.

An important story has been widely ignored, to the lasting shame of Western journalism. The organisation involved has made no move to correct the wrong. The individuals involved have been unfairly attacked by their own former employer.

Politicians have continued to repeat claims based on documents which have been gravely challenged, as if nothing had happened.

 

A summary of what happened

Fact: Leaks from the OPCW last summer, whose source has never been identified, showed that the OPCW had sidelined and suppressed key information undermining its own public conclusion that it was ‘reasonable’ to believe that chlorine gas had been used in warfare in Syria in April 2018.

 

A real expert

 

The leak cited work done by an OPCW inspector named Ian Henderson. Mr Henderson is a Chemical Engineer who studied at the universities of Witwatersrand and Durban and has considerable experience in ballistics thanks to military service as an artilleryman. He now lives in Australia. He is entirely non-political.

As we shall see, he has had long and distinguished service at the OPCW and was highly-regarded by them right up till the moment when he challenged attempts to exclude his work from consideration.

 

Unintentional

 

Fact: Asked about the Henderson disclosure, the OPCW stated that it was mounting a leak enquiry, so unintentionally confirming that the documents were genuine.

Not long afterwards, Mr Henderson was escorted from the OPCW building. This happened after he declined to take part in what he called a ‘witch-hunt’ against his colleagues. He has always said that he did not leak the material.

 

The second leak

Fact: Further evidence of wrongdoing emerged late last autumn, when another senior inspector at the OPCW identified himself to a panel of experts as ‘Alex’.

His testimony, reported by the website ‘Counterpunch, stated that the suppression of key information had gone much further. As confirmed by documents later published by Wikileaks, evidence which cast even more doubt on the chlorine gas verdict was filleted out of the reports eventually published by the OPCW.

 

Three mysterious Americans

 

‘Alex’ also recounted how astonishingly, a group of Americans had been introduced to the investigation team, and had more or less told them that chlorine had been used. Ian Henderson later confirmed that this wholly improper meeting had in fact taken place.

 

‘Make it sound like we found something’

 

At one point Mr Henderson had been told by a colleague: ‘we have been told by the first floor [the seat of power at the OPCW] that we have to make it sound like we found something’.

There had been serious internal rows in the OPCW about this censorship, fiercely over-ridden by senior officials. Inspectors had complained about being sidelined and having their work excluded from published reports. But they could get nowhere —as the OPCW has no agreed system in which would-be whistleblowers can access formal procedures. There was little the dissenters could do. But quite large numbers of OPCW staff must by then have been aware of the dissent.

In a statement which Ian Henderson addressed to the Security Council last January he makes claims that are quite astonishing. It describes his attempts to communicate his unease to the OPCW management.

 

“You will never get to the Director-General, and if you try and go around me to get to him, there will be consequences”

 

‘In the weeks following the incident, I attempted to redress the situation internally in a way that would not damage the credibility of the TS. This included the following: • I held discussions and meetings with the Chief of Cabinet, the (newly-joined) Director of Inspectorate, Head of Operations, Head of the Office of Confidentiality and Security, Director of the Office of Strategy and Policy, and the Acting Director of the Office of Internal Oversight. • I requested a meeting with the Director-General, as I thought the situation was serious enough to warrant him being made aware of it. The request for [a] meeting was denied and I was informed by a senior manager that “you will never get to the Director-General, and if you try and go around me to get to him, there will be consequences”. I shall identify the senior manager verbally, in his presence, should this be required. • I drafted a memorandum to the Director-General, through the Director of Inspectorate’.

 

Dossier

 

Henderson compiled a complete dossier of everything that was wrong with the Douma investigation. It was reviewed by the Chief of Cabinet but was not delivered to the DG. Henderson says, ‘I deposited a dossier with the Acting Director of the Office of Internal Oversight, together with a memorandum requesting an investigation by OIO into the situation of the FFM report. Months later I was informed that nothing would be done, as this was now seen as outside the scope of the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight.’

Slightly Foxed

By November 24th it was clear that the scandal was now out in the open.

Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, had interviewed Jonathan Steele about the revelations of ‘Alex’. The London Mail on Sunday carried the story prominently on Sunday 24th November, as did La Repubblica of Rome. Robert Fisk of ‘the Independent’ took up the case. Spectator America also covered it. The major news agencies made small references to it, one of which confirmed the authenticity of a crucial leaked e-mail.

The Sound of Silence

But most major media maintained an almost total silence about them. Meanwhile, on social media, sources sympathetic to the OPCW spread doubts about the validity of the leaks.

For weeks, the OPCW made no official response to these revelations.

Then, on 6th February the OPCW held a briefing for member states, in which it presented the outcome of its inquiry into the actions of two inspectors and an alleged breach of confidentiality. This was reported in a series of documents https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2020/02/opcw-independent-investigation-possible-breaches-confidentiality-report

 

Who Shall Guard the Guardians?

 

One UK newspaper, ‘the Guardian’, reported this development thus:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/25/chemical-weapons-watchdog-opcw-defends-syria-report-after-leaks

 

The OPCW documents took the form of a show trial of both these individuals, conducted in their absence. Inspector A had said he would only participate in the investigation if the OPCW’s chief, Fernando Arias, was given a copy of his original complaint against what he saw as misuse of information. This was refused. Inspector B wished to bring his own lawyer. This also was refused. Both dissenters had tried repeatedly to take their concerns to Mr Arias, but they were blocked by senior management where the NATO powers which have been keen to intervene in Syria are well-represented.

Ad Hominem

The attack was almost entirely ad hominem, claiming, totally inaccurately, that they played a minor role, that they did not know the full story, that they had behaved in an underhand fashion. It did not in fact challenge the veracity of any of the leaks (for the simple reason that they are all true), but instead sought to belittle the two dissenters, who it referred to as ‘Inspector A’ and ‘Inspector B’.

Kafka Calls

These names make the whole thing sound like a mixture of Franz Kafka, Harold Pinter, J.B.Priestley and Inspector Morse. And Kafka, as so often, has provided the atmosphere of injustice, menace and obscurity.

But the claims made by the OPCW were shocking to those who actually know about the case. I am in a privileged position, I have spoken at length to Ian Henderson, who has been ‘outed’ beyond recall and who is obviously ‘Inspector A’. The identity of ‘Inspector B’ remains unrevealed.

I have since been in contact with both of them, receiving their detailed rebuttals to the charges made against them. It is my plan to publish these rebuttals in full at some point.

 

Telling the Security Council

 

But for the moment I will mainly refer readers to the written statement made by Ian Henderson to the UN Security Council. His ultimate employers, at a recent special session which discussed the case. He also made a briefer filmed statement. You may read the written document in full here:

https://thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Henderson-Testimony-UN.pdf

 

Oh yes, he was: Inspector A was a member of the FFM

 

But first let us hear Inspector A’s response to the repeated claim that he was not a member of the OPCW FFM (Fact Finding Mission) which went to Douma in April 2018. Here is his own answer: The OPCW have claimed ‘Inspector A was not a member of the FFM, and his name is not included in the mandates issued for FFM deployments.

‘A: Wrong, and misleading. When the first team was assembled, Inspector A was on a mission in Nepal. Therefore, obviously, he couldn’t be on the mandate for the team first deploying. When he returned to HQ, it was agreed at the operational level that there was a need to add critical experience and expertise to the FFM. He was then notified to the Syrian Arab Republic as an addition to the FFM team and he joined them. Documents support this.’

 

This Doesn’t Quite Add Up

 

I might add to this that the Final Report of the FFM (Annex 6, para 11)  says:

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/03/s-1731-2019%28e%29.pdf

On 4 June, FFM team members tagged and sealed the cylinders from Locations 2 and 4, and documented the procedure.’

Now, there is no doubt that ‘Inspector A’ is Ian Henderson, whose name was on the leak which was investigated.

In his recent report to the UN Security Council he says :

‘I was the sub-team leader for the visit to “Site 8”, to further inspect and photograph the cylinders removed from Locations 2 and 4, and to apply tags/seals to them.’

This would seem to be a conflict. The OPCW’s own report says that FFM members tagged and sealed the cylinders. Mr Henderson was among those who did so and indeed led the team. In that case, surely, he must have been a member of the FFM.

 

Outstanding Professionals

 

This pretence that A and B are unimportant marginal figures is very odd. Both had in fact been considered outstanding professionals for the OPCW throughout their careers, and have many written notes commending the quality of their work. They were rehired – something the OPCW very rarely does – because the OPCW needed their experience.

The OPCW says they were rehired on a lower grade from the one they had previously held. It does not say that this was because the old higher grade had been abolished, and so it was no reflection on the two men’s skills and competence.

 

Underhand or Not?

 

 

THE OPCW also accuses Inspector A of underhand behaviour:

 

‘In July 2018, Inspector A, without proper authorisation, contacted companies about conducting an engineering

study on the cylinders found at two locations in Douma. When this became known to the team leader of the

FFM, Inspector A was instructed to refrain from making contact with any external third parties. The

investigation found that Inspector A did not accept this and decided that he was going to complete his study

alone—without informing the FFM team leader.’

 

Inspector A maintains that he behaved entirely properly and provided a detailed explanation of events in his statement to the UN Security Council (link above) beginning at paragraph 21.

Among many other attacks on the two inspectors is one which suggests that much of the investigation into the Douma incident was carried on after they had left or were no longer involved.

 

Only one visit to Douma

In fact there was only one OPCW visit to Douma and both A and B were deeply involved in it. Later work was done by an almost entirely different team, in what the OPCW calls ‘Country X’ which is almost certainly Turkey. No new information about chemical or ballistic or engineering matters was obtained on those deployments. And it was the suppression of important parts of the initial research, at Douma in April 2018, that caused the inspectors to dissent.

During this visit, Inspector A was in Douma, while Inspector B was in Damascus overseeing the technical and scientific operation. Inspector B *would* have been in Douma if his requests for the necessary security training (essential for such a risky deployment and very hard to complete at short notice) had not been turned down by the OPCW some time before. He was in close touch with the inspectors in Douma and was able to pass on his experience to them through secure communication. Inspector B is in fact one of only 4 inspectors (out of 10) who was present in Damascus for the entire duration of the investigation (14 April to 3 May). The team leader himself, who wrote the final report, left after 3 days, before the investigation ever began, which by an extension of the logic implied, invalidates the team leader’s contribution to the final report.

Inspector B was the planner and coordinator of all the scientific and technical activities on site. He was part of the sub-team involved in the negotiations with the Syrian authorities, participated in the interview process, wrote the on-site progress reports for the previous Director General, was the chief drafter of the original interim report, and with Inspector A, the most experienced inspector in the team. In fact, his 17 years’ experience as an inspector far outnumbers the average for the team.

Inspector B was the only organic chemist in the team and the recognised specialist in the OPCW when it came to chemical weapons production. As testimony to this, in his annual performance appraisals, it is cited by his supervisors that “he demonstrates a knowledge and skill in chemistry which is not possessed by others in the TS” (PMAS 2010), “I can say without fear of being unfair to others that you have been the professional in the TS that has contributed the most to the knowledge and understanding of CW chemistry applied to inspections. You produced a lot of knowledge and unselfishly shared every bit of what you know with others, enthusiastically” (PMAS 2017)

 

There is more

 

I include these facts (a small sample of a 20,000 word dossier I have compiled on this matter) to indicate in just how many ways the OPCW’s attack on these two men is unfair and undeserved.

Perhaps even more important, the OPCW response does not in fact challenge their original concerns, which remain, about the investigation process and the report on Douma. These are that chemical, ballistics and engineering evidence from Douma itself, as well as evidence from external expert toxicologists, were known to the OPCW before the final report but suppressed by it because it would undermined its conclusion that said:

 

Regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon on 7 April 2018 in Douma, the Syrian Arab Republic, the evaluation and analysis of all the information gathered by the FFM—witnesses’ testimonies, environmental and biomedical samples analysis results, toxicological and ballistic analyses from experts, additional digital information from witnesses—provide reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.

 

A weak conclusion

 

Careful readers will note the weakness of the conclusion. ‘Reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical took place’ is a very weak verdict. It is doubts that are usually reasonable. Grounds need to be demonstrable, as the burden of proof must lie with those who make the allegation, in any serious inquiry. As for ‘the toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine’ this is also a remarkably weak and diffident statement, especially if it is being used to justify a large multinational military intervention (as it is).

 

It seems to me that the facts and expert opinions which the OPCW had suppressed in its published documents were, even so, unintentionally expressed in the weakness and vagueness of this conclusion.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

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

Obama administration used classification for censorship before Bolton

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2020

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/04/obama-administration-has-weaponized-classification-and-censorship-before-bolton-column/4622713002/

James Bovard
Opinion columnist

Ever since the 9/11 attacks, Republicans and Democrats have conspired to keep Americans increasingly ignorant of what the federal government does. The number of secret federal documents skyrocketed, and any information classified was treated like a political holy relic that could not be exposed without dooming the nation. Ironically, the fate of the Trump presidency may hinge on perpetuating the unjustifiable secrecy now pervading Washington.

John Bolton wrote a book about his experiences as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser that could provide key information regarding Trump’s dealing with the Ukrainian government, and Democratic members of Congress are calling for the manuscript to be made public. Former government officials are obliged to submit their publications for review to ensure that no classified information is revealedBolton’s lawyer denies that the book contains classified information, but previous manuscript reviews of other would-be authors have dragged out for months or years.

 

Obama weaponized classification

Since the 1990s, the number of classified documents annually by federal agencies has increased more than 15 times.

In 2004, then-Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., derided the federal classification system as “incomprehensibly complex” and “so bloated it often does not distinguish between the critically important and the comically irrelevant.”

The New York Times reported in 2005 that federal agencies were “classifying documents at the rate of 125 a minute as they create new categories of semi-secrets bearing vague labels like ‘sensitive security information.’ “

Each classified document is tacitly backed by a federal iron fist ready to squash anyone who discloses it without permission. Regardless of whether the Trump White House is conniving to stifle Bolton’s disclosures, it was the Obama White House that weaponized classification. J. William Leonard, former chief of the federal Information Security Oversight Office, complained in 2011 that the Obama administration had “criminally prosecuted more leakers of purportedly classified information than all previous administrations combined.”

For the Obama administration, leaking classified information to the news media was worse than spying for a hostile government. Its Justice Department declared in 2011 that government officials who “elected to disclose the classified information publicly through the mass media” were “posing an even greater threat to society” than do foreign spies.

The Obama administration believed that its classification decrees were so sacrosanct, no federal judge could overturn them. “We don’t think there is a First Amendment right to classified documents,” Justice Department lawyer Catherine Dorsey told a federal judge in 2015.

Dorsey agreed that the government’s position was tantamount to claiming that the court “has absolutely no authority” to unseal evidence even if it’s clear the government’s bid to keep it secret is based on “irrationality” or that it’s “hiding something,” as The Intercept reported.

National security adviser John Bolton.

Classification is also a literary scourge. Hundreds of thousands of former officials and military personnel with security clearances must allow pre-publication reviews of their books and other writings. Former Justice Department lawyer Jesselyn Radack observed that pre-publication review “has always been a filter to promote fawning memoirs by senior government officials while censoring whistleblowers and critics.”

2019 lawsuit claimed that the pre-publication censorship vested excessive power in government officials who, according to The New York Times, “can delay or discriminate against lower-ranking people who criticize government actions, while speedily clearing favorable memoirs and other writings by retired senior officials.”

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, declared, “This far-reaching censorship system simply can’t be squared with the Constitution.”

Classification: A convenience for politicians to dominate media

Torturers have benefited mightily from censorship. Mark Fallon, a veteran counterintelligence officer and counterterrorism expert, wrote a book entitled  “Unjustifiable Means: The Inside Story of How the CIA, Pentagon and U.S. Government Conspired to Torture.” But his account of the torture regime was badly delayed and heavily censored. Fallon charges that books by the architects and apologists for CIA torture — including former CIA Director George Tenet, former acting general counsel John Rizzo and former Counterterrorism Center chief Jose Rodriguez — were treated better in the pre-publication process.

Similarly, when former FBI counterterrorism agent Ali Soufan wrote a book on CIA torture abuses, the CIA demanded that Soufan — who was on-site for brutal interrogations — remove the pronouns “I” and “me” from his narrative. The CIA also deleted quotes in his book that had appeared in congressional hearing transcripts.

Trump will be back:If impeachment-tainted Trump loses in 2020, he’ll be back

Classification is often a political flag of convenience that politicians exploit to dominate the media. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd observed in 2006, “The entire Iraq War was paved by (Bush administration) leaks. Cheney & Co. were so busy trying to prove a mushroom cloud was emanating from (Saddam Hussein’s) direction, they could not leak their cherry-picked stories fast enough.”

Bush administration disclosures of sensitive information were often handed on a silver platter to pliant journalists. Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe explained the Bush White House method: “They declassify when they feel like it. I’ve been with senior administration officials who have just decided to declassify something in front of me because it’s bolstering their argument.”

When federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced former Trump aide Rick Gates last month, she declared, “If people don’t have the facts, democracy doesn’t work.”

But Republicans and Democrats in Washington have long since approved denying Americans the facts millions of times a year. Unfortunately, secrecy and lying are often two sides of the same political coin.

Be seeing you

Opinion | The Broken System of Classifying Government ...

 

 

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

To Hell With the Perpetually Offended – Taki’s Magazine – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on December 30, 2019

https://www.takimag.com/article/to-hell-with-the-perpetually-offended/

Taki

…Fifty-two years later I am once again writing under censorship, this time virulently unsuited to it, the inspectors now being the politically correct gestapo who hand down punishments for life. One wrong word and one’s career is kaput, no ifs or buts about it.

A society in which free speech or an ill-judged joke means losing one’s livelihood is not a laughing matter. And this is taking place right here, in the good old U.S. of A. Free speech and due process have become things of the past. Let me explain: The Orwellian vision of total conformity derives from an intrusive government that polices thought, the written and spoken word. Today’s demand for total conformity as far as free speech is concerned does not come from any government, but from the media, the film industry, and university campuses. When you think of it, it’s really quite unique. Governments have been suppressing free speech since time immemorial, but for the first time in man’s history the abolition of free speech has taken place through osmosis, by the very people who teach and make movies and write about freedom: the universities, Hollywood, and the media. The key words that are used for restricting speech are racist, sexist, homophobic, nationalist, white supremacist, and other taboo words I cannot think of right this minute.

An 85-year-old sports announcer in Canada recently was fired for regretting on the air that new immigrants had abandoned the tradition of wearing a poppy in their lapels to commemorate the veterans who had lost their lives in World War I. Don Cherry’s crime was seen as such for mentioning immigrants, the diversity mob demanding his head even before he had finished the sentence.

Megyn Kelly’s television-superstar career has been on hold for years because she rhetorically asked on the air what was wrong with wearing black face paint à la Al Jolson at a costume party. She compounded her mistake by also saying that Santa Claus was white, not black. Both Cherry and Kelly were fired because aggrieved listeners were shocked to hear such talk. And it gets worse: Due process no longer exists when a female accuses a male of harassment.

The latest brouhaha with the perpetually offended—the sisterhood—comes to us from dear old England, where a woman threatened to divorce her husband because he gave her an exercise bike for Christmas. Fellow females were outraged because the present signified the recipient was fat. Enter that super-woke jerk Justin Trudeau, who wants to have the word mankind changed. Nothing, of course, can match The New York Times for waging unrelenting war against white people. The rag praises a junk movie as if it were Citizen Kane: “Queen and Slim are slow dancing in a Louisiana juke joint. The black couple has been on the run since shooting a white cop dead. The two sway tenderly, staring deeply into each other’s eyes….” Needless to say I haven’t seen this trash, but I bring it up because of the sympathetic manner in which the rag presents the black killers. Imagine what would happen if someone wrote in this manner about a white couple having murdered a black police officer…

Finally, good old Syracuse U. It recently gave in to student demands after rioting by black, Latino, Asian-American, Jewish, Muslim, and indigenous students after racist and anti-Semitic graffiti appeared in a freshman dorm. Nineteen demands by students were met, and everyone went home happy after rioting that lasted two weeks. Worst of all, the graffiti read “Little China Town.”

Be seeing you

sheeple

 

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

Does Hillary Clinton Want Fact-Checking… or Censorship?

Posted by M. C. on November 17, 2019

Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if various Democrat politicians came under attack by opponent ads. Let’s say Hillary Clinton runs for president again. Would she demand the media ban an ad that begins, “Hillary Clinton says she is a champion of women’s rights. Then why does she protect powerful men suspected of rape?”

Al Sharpton was one promoter of the infamous Tawana Brawley hoax. His history of accuracy is about as good as Alex Jones’, who initially claimed that the Sandy Hook school massacre was a hoax. I don’t expect that Zuckerberg will sit down with Alex Jones to hear his demands soon.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/does-hillary-clinton-want-fact-checking-or-censorship

 

Does Hillary Clinton Want Fact-Checking… or Censorship?

Recently Hillary Clinton blasted Facebook, Tweeting:

Facebook’s decision to allow false information in political advertisements is appalling.

Voters are being confronted by millions of pieces of misinformation.

A world where up is down and down is up is a world where democracy can’t thrive.

Other Democrats joined in. Virginia Senator Mark Warner said: “Facebook’s new ads policy allows politicians to run demonstrably false advertising on its platform. I don’t think that’s right.”

Both Clinton and Warner were referring to Facebook’s announced policy of exempting political ads from fact-checking. But in a world where Snopes fact checks the satirical Babylon Bee, we should all be skeptical of the fact-checking they have in mind.

It’s hard to imagine good intentions motivate these politicians. In any case, good intentions are not enough. Media fact-checking can easily be biased and result in censorship of views critical to various candidates.

Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if various Democrat politicians came under attack by opponent ads. Let’s say Hillary Clinton runs for president again. Would she demand the media ban an ad that begins, “Hillary Clinton says she is a champion of women’s rights. Then why does she protect powerful men suspected of rape?”

If Elizabeth Warren gets the Democratic nomination, would she ask for a ban on a hard-hitting ad that says something like:

Elizabeth Warren is a serial liar. Now she is lying again when she says the middle class won’t pay for her vast new spending programs. Economist Antony Davies says: ‘The 550 US billionaires together are worth $2.5 trillion. If we confiscated 100% of their wealth, we’d raise enough to run the federal government for less than 8 months. Perhaps our problem isn’t how much billionaires have but how much politicians spend.’ Senator Warren, your facts are wrong again.

If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, he’d be outraged by an ad questioning why Sanders cozies up to communist dictators or one questioning his wife’s financial dealings.

How about a potential ad targeting Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar? “Minnesota has a proud history of tolerance. There is no room for an anti-Semitic hate monger in Congress.” Will a future fact-checker reject this ad because Omar and her supporters claim critics are “twisting her words”?

But let’s go beyond politicians. What about ads for public policies?

Should ads that argue for a ban on exposing young children to bewildering information on gender dysphoria be banned as “hateful”? Just over ten years ago, confusion over sexual identity was called gender identity disorder; no professional would have recommended that a seven-year-old boy begin transitioning to a girl at the urging of a parent.

Or imagine the outrage over a campaign ad calling for an overhaul of welfare programs saying the worst poverty “is not material poverty but poverty of soul.” Fact-checkers might say the ad blames innocent victims of poverty and is therefore false.

Since the official verdict is that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide, would a fact-checker reject an ad demanding an investigation into the coverup of his possible murder?

Recently Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg held a two hour “no-holds-barred” meeting with Al Sharpton and other “civil rights activists.” The meeting took place at Zuckerberg’s home; discussions centered on Sharpton’s objections to Facebook’s “decision not to fact-check ads and other content from politicians.”

Al Sharpton was one promoter of the infamous Tawana Brawley hoax. His history of accuracy is about as good as Alex Jones’, who initially claimed that the Sandy Hook school massacre was a hoax. I don’t expect that Zuckerberg will sit down with Alex Jones to hear his demands soon.

Political commentary and political ads have long included elements short on facts. Vigorous campaigns are a strength of our political system, not a weakness. Unlike other countries where “slandering” the leader can lead to imprisonment or death, politicians in America are not above criticism.

In Nazi Germany, it was an official fact that Jews were Untermensch, subhuman mongrels. In pre-Civil War America, it was a fact that slaveowners could treat blacks as property. Freedom of speech allows individuals to challenge “facts.”

Collectivists, including democratic socialists, always aim to suppress speech. Because their plans never stand up to reality, they must stifle the resulting dissent. Is that why Hillary Clinton and others want to suppress alternative views?

“Whether you can observe a thing depends upon the theory which you use,” observed Einstein. Often what is being disputed in politics are not facts but interpretations of events. If you have the right politics, there are very few things the media will not overlook.

Suppression of speech – not “false information” – threatens our Republic

Be seeing you

bubba

 

 

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

THOUGHT POLICE: Facebook, YouTube, Twitter all ban any mention of “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella as the Overton Window of allowable speech collapses – NaturalNews.com

Posted by M. C. on November 11, 2019

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-11-09-thought-police-facebook-youtube-twitter-ban-eric-ciaramella.html

(Natural News) Anyone publishing the name of the so-called deep state CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella is being systematically de-platformed by Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

This is happening because lawless Leftists fully understand that the more people learn about Eric Ciaramella, the more rapidly the “Ukrainegate” impeachment hoax collapses.

An insane effort has been undertaken by the entire CIA-run fake news media and CIA-puppeted tech giants to memory hole the name “Eric Ciaramella” and erase it from reality.

What they are really trying to pull off is history’s first secret impeachment proceedings characterized by anonymous accusers who may never be identified, cross-examined or even named.

This smacks of the very kind of secret kangaroo courts run by the KGB in the old Soviet Union, where the person being accused is never allowed to confront their accuser or even know what crimes they’re being accused of committing. Left-wing criminal congressman Adam Schiff would have fit right in with the KGB secret police.

In order to achieve this Orwellian goal of complete secrecy and obfuscation of the facts, the tech giants are now aggressively de-platforming any channel that mentions the name “Ciaramella” in text, images or videos. This action is predicated on the coordinated liberal lie that falsely claims naming whistleblowers is somehow against the law.

It turns out it isn’t. That’s why the left-wing media itself routinely names whistleblowers if doing so is calculated to be able to harm President Trump, Kavanaugh or other prominent conservatives. (Remember the Christine Blasey Ford circus against Kavanaugh? Ford’s name wasn’t blacklisted from the internet…)

“Facebook is removing any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name and is cracking down against Facebook publishers that mention any allegation of the potential whistleblower’s name, claiming they are violating Facebook’s Community Standards and Policies,” reports Breitbart.com. “Administrators of Breitbart News’ Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening stating that Breitbart’s page is ‘at risk of being unpublished’ but were not given any details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue.”

Facebook and the other tech giants are now running a coordinated memory hole operation to hide the identity of a criminal deep state coup operative from the American people. This reminds us of the CIA-controlled fake news media memory holing any mention of the CDC scientist (Dr. William Thompson) who publicly admitted taking part of a massive science fraud cover-up to bury the evidence that vaccines cause autism.

As usual, the real goal here is to destroy Trump at any cost, all while suppressing the free expression of Americans through coordinated, malicious censorship that amounts to nothing less than an illegal coup against the United States of America.

That’s why the criminal heads of these anti-First Amendment tech giants — like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg — must be arrested, indicted and charged with treason.

As I explain in the video below, humanity must declare war on Google and the tech giants, or humanity will be forever enslaved and silenced. (By the time the libtard fascist Dems figure this out, they will already be the targets of the very mass executions they are unleashing, just like what happened in the left-wing French Revolution.)

The tech giants are now openly engaged in election rigging

Not only that, Facebook is now threatening to de-platform all channels that mention Trump rallies. As The Gateway Pundit explains, Facebook is now threatening multiple channels after they posted Trump rally descriptions:

On Wednesday night The Gateway Pundit received several warnings from Facebook that we violated community standards and our account is “at risk of being unpublished.”

We were also notified from our readers that anyone who reposted our articles were ALSO THREATENED to be unpublished.

And we are not alone.
On Thursday morning David J Harris Jr. also reported that his Facebook page was being threatened.

David described it as a “modern day lynching.”

It is time for President Trump to declare the tech giants to be engaged in a coordinated, treasonous conspiracy to overthrow the Republic, silence the American people and destroy the very foundation of democracy.

Arrest the tech tyrants now.

The techno-tyrants must be dismantled and shut down. All their top managers and CEOs must be criminally indicted and imprisoned.

If you wish to exercise your free speech, post your videos on Brighteon.com, the pro-liberty YouTube alternative.

Be seeing you

mark of the beast

The Mark of the Beast

 

 

 

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

Propaganda and Post-Truth, by Thierry Meyssan

Posted by M. C. on November 7, 2019

https://www.voltairenet.org/article208229.html

by Thierry Meyssan

For 18 years, we have been debating the strange evolution of the media, which seems to place less and less value on facts. We attribute this phenomenon to their democratization through social networks. It would be because from now on any person can become a journalist, that the quality of information would have collapsed. The right to speak should therefore be reserved for the elites.
What if it’s exactly the opposite? If the censorship we are considering was not the answer to the phenomenon, but its continuity?

Propaganda

In political systems where Power needs the participation of the People, the purpose of propaganda is to get as many people as possible to adhere to a particular ideology and to mobilize them to apply it.

The methods used to convince are the same whether one is acting in good or bad faith. However, in the 20th century, the use of lies and repetition, the elimination of different points of view, and recruitment into mass organizations were first theorized by British MP Charles Masterman, US journalist George Creel and especially German minister Joseph Goebbels with the devastating consequences that we know [1]. This is why, at the end of the two World Wars, the United Nations General Assembly adopted three resolutions condemning the use of deliberate lies in the media to provoke war and enjoining Member States to ensure the free flow of ideas, the only prevention of intoxication [2].

While propaganda techniques have been perfected over the past 75 years and are systematically used in all international conflicts, they are gradually giving way to new techniques of influence in countries at peace: it is no longer a question of making the public adhere to an ideology and act in the service of power, but on the contrary of dissuading it from intervening, paralysing it…

Post-truth

Let us take the example of the recent execution of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. We all know that a helicopter squad cannot fly low across northern Syria without being seen by the population or spotted by Russian air defence systems. The narrative that is told to us is clearly impossible. However, far from questioning what we consider propaganda, we are discussing whether the Caliph, cornered by the US Special Forces, blew himself up with two or three children.

At other times, we would have agreed that an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us, starting with the death of the Caliph. Now we think otherwise. We accept that this factual element has been falsified, a priori for reasons of national security, and we consider the rest of the narrative as authentic. In the long run, we will forget our concern with this or other elements and publish encyclopedias that will tell this beautiful story with its most unlikely elements.

In other words, we instinctively understand that this narrative does not tell facts, but conveys a message. We are therefore not positioning ourselves in the face of the facts, but in the face of the message as we have understood it: as Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was executed; Power remains in the United States of America…

Antidote

For the past 18 years, we have been told that by offering everyone the ability to express themselves on a blog or social networks, technological progress has devalued public speech. Anyone can say anything. In the past, only politicians and professional journalists had the opportunity to express themselves. They ensured the quality of their interventions and writings. Today the vulgum pecus, the ignorant crowd, takes bladders for lanterns and spreads fake news.

However, it is exactly the opposite. Leading politicians, starting with President George Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Tony Blair, have assumed inconsistent speeches to inhibit the reactions of the public in general and their constituents in particular. This technique substitutes absurdity for truth as others substituted lies. It has destroyed the functioning of the democratic systems that ordinary people are trying to restore with their means.

CRT televisions display 625-line images. It suffices that one of them be blurred for us to perceive so it alone in the image. On the same principle, it is enough to hear a single different point of view for the lies of omnipresent propaganda to be obvious. That is why propaganda, when it lies, requires relentless censorship. But if the lie introduces an inconsistency into the discourse so that this inconsistency becomes voluntarily obvious, alternative points of view should no longer be censored. On the contrary, we must let them express themselves and highlight them by publicly denouncing some of them as fake news.

The antidote to post-truth is not the verification of facts, this has always been the basis of the work of journalists and historians, it is the restoration of logic. This is why a new form of censorship is needed today. Most Facebook users have been logged out at one time or another. In countless cases, users are unable to understand why they have been censored. They search in vain for which prohibited word would have been detected by a computer, or which uncivil position would have been prohibited by a supervisor. In reality, what they are often accused of and arbitrarily sanctioned for is restoring logic to their reasoning.

 

Translation
Roger Lagassé

 

 

 

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

Twitter Suspends Accounts For Propaganda, Has Literal Propagandist As High-Level Executive – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on October 2, 2019

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/10/01/twitter-suspends-accounts-for-propaganda-has-literal-propagandist-as-high-level-executive/

Middle East Eye‘s Ian Cobain has published an exclusive titled “Twitter executive for Middle East is British Army ‘psyops’ soldier”, exposing the fact that Twitter’s senior editorial executive for Europe, the Middle East and Africa also works for an actual, literal propaganda unit in the British military called the 77th Brigade. Which is mighty interesting, considering the fact that Twitter constantly suspends accounts from non-empire-aligned nations based on the allegation that they are engaging in propaganda.

“The senior Twitter executive with editorial responsibility for the Middle East is also a part-time officer in the British Army’s psychological warfare unit,” Cobain writes. “Gordon MacMillan, who joined the social media company’s UK office six years ago, has for several years also served with the 77th Brigade, a unit formed in 2015 in order to develop ‘non-lethal’ ways of waging war. The 77th Brigade uses social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, as well as podcasts, data analysis and audience research to wage what the head of the UK military, General Nick Carter, describes as ‘information warfare’.”

MacMillan’s presence in a government psyops unit was not a secret; until Middle East Eye began raising questions on the matter, it was right there on his LinkedIn profile. This is not something that anyone considering him for promotion was likely to have been unaware of. According to his (now-edited) LinkedIn page, MacMillan has been in his current position as Head of Editorial EMEA since July 2016. According to Middle East Eye, MacMillan was already a captain in the 77th Brigade by the end of 2016. His current rank there is being hidden behind a wall of government secrecy.

When questioned by Middle East Eye about MacMillan’s work in the British Army’s online propaganda program, Twitter hilariously responded, “Twitter is an open, neutral and rigorously independent platform. We actively encourage all our employees to pursue external interests in line with our commitment to healthy corporate social responsibility, and we will continue to do so.”

That’s very nice of Twitter, isn’t it? They encourage their employees to pursue wholesome external interests, whether that be tennis, volunteering at a soup kitchen, or moonlighting at a military program explicitly devoted to online psychological warfare. You know, just everyday socially responsible pastime stuff.

The fact that Twitter not only employs known propagandists but actively promotes them to executive positions is a very large and inconvenient plot hole in their “open, neutral and rigorously independent platform” story. Especially since, as I documented recently, the mass purges of foreign Twitter accounts we’ve been seeing more and more of lately always exclusively target governments and groups which are not in alignment with the interests of the US-centralized power alliance of which the UK is a part. We’ve seen mass suspensions of accounts from Cuba, China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and the Catalan independence movement on allegations of “coordinated influence operations” and “covert, manipulative behaviors”, yet Twitter currently employs a high-level executive for whom coordinated influence operations and covert, manipulative behaviors on behalf of the British government are a known vocation.

“On September 20 Twitter deleted a large number of accounts, including in MacMillan’s area of responsibility. How many of those were designated by the British state?” asks Moon of Alabama of this new report.

How many indeed?

This is just one more item on the ever-growing mountain of evidence that these giant, immensely influential social media platforms we’ve all been herded into are nothing other than state propaganda for the digital age. True, they operate in a way which disregards the official lines that are drawn between government power and corporate power and the lines that are drawn between nations, but then, so do our rulers. We are living in a globe-spanning corporate oligarchic empire, and these government-aligned Silicon Valley giants are a major part of that empire’s propaganda engine.

The real power of that empire and that oligarchy lies in their invisibile and unacknowledged nature. Officially we all live in separate, sovereign nations run by democratically elected officials; unofficially we live in a massive transnational empire ruled by a loose alliance of plutocrats and opaque government agencies where military propagandists are employed by social media monopolies to manipulate public narratives. The official mask exists only on the level of narrative, while the unofficial reality is what’s actually happening. Yet whenever you try to publicly discuss the threat that is being posed by oligarchic narrative control online, you get told by establishment loyalists and libertarians that Twitter is just a simple private business running things in a way that is entirely separate from government censorship and state propaganda.

All we clear-eyed rebels can do is keep documenting the evidence of what’s going on and pointing to it as loudly as we can. So once again for the people in the back: Twitter employs literal government propagandists as high-level executives while purging accounts from unabsorbed governments for circulating unauthorized narratives. This is a fact. Remember it.

__________________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either YoutubesoundcloudApple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemitthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

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

Meditations On Twitter’s Silencing Of Daniel McAdams – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on September 7, 2019

In reality, McAdams was suspended because there are people on Twitter who, either due to profession or obsession, make it their business to report any effective opponent of western imperialism…

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/09/05/meditations-on-twitters-silencing-of-daniel-mcadams/

Daniel McAdams, the Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, was banned from Twitter last week. Officially, it was because he used the word “retarded” to describe the odious establishment propagandist Sean Hannity after noting the hilarious fact that the Fox News host had been wearing a CIA lapel pin while “challenging the deep state”. Unofficially, it was because McAdams has been operating for years at the apex of one of the most effective antiwar movements in the United States.

An article from Liberty Conservative News about McAdams’ encounter with the business end of the Twitter censorship hammer reports that the outspoken foreign policy critic received a notification that his account “has been suspended and will not be restored because it was found to be violating Twitter’s Terms of Service, specifically the Twitter Rules against hateful conduct.”

“It is against our rules to promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease,” the notification reads. “Additionally, if we determine that the primary purpose of an account is to incite harm towards others on the basis of these categories, that account may be suspended without prior warning.”

Now, unless Sean Hannity does in fact have some literal mental handicap we don’t know about, it’s not accurate to say that he was attacked or threatened on that or any other basis; rather, he was merely insulted with a common pejorative that is not widely considered to be politically correct. It is also certainly not accurate to say that the primary purpose of McAdams’ now-defunct Twitter account was to incite harm toward others based on the aforementioned categories. Indeed, the article notes, the word “retarded” is used constantly on Twitter by users all around the world who never suffer any consequences for it; a quick Twitter search easily confirms that the word is used as an insult multiple times per minute. The reasons given for McAdams’ suspension can therefore be regarded as bogus.

In reality, McAdams was suspended because there are people on Twitter who, either due to profession or obsession, make it their business to report any effective opponent of western imperialism at every opportunity to Twitter admins, many of whom apparently have a clear pro-establishment bias of their own. It’s happened to me on more than one occasion, and we may be sure that it happened to Daniel McAdams last week as well.

Which is annoying. It’s annoying to know that at some point I’ll probably slip up and say something imperfectly in an increasingly restrictive speech environment which gets me permanently banned from that platform. I like Twitter. I’m good at it. I’ve recently concluded that it’s pretty much useless for dialogue, but it is a great way for one person to get unauthorized ideas seen millions of times per month by people who might not feel like reading an entire article. I’ll be very put off when the banhammer finds my pretty face.

But you know what’s even more annoying? What’s even more annoying is that we live in a society where insulting a murderous war propagandist like Sean Hannity gets you silenced and marginalized, but being a murderous war propagandist like Sean Hannity does not. Being a murderous war propagandist like Sean Hannity gets you rewarded with fame and fortune at every turn.

I’d like us to reverse this, please.

I’d like to live in a society where promoting mass military slaughter is the thing that gets someone de-platformed and shunned, not using a rude word to insult someone who promotes mass military slaughter.

A society where a US president killing mountains of people around the world attracts more media attention than his rude tweets.

A society where being a warmonger is just as taboo and reviled as being a serial killer or a child rapist.

A society where people get their news from reporters who tell the truth about what’s happening, not from veterans of depraved intelligence agencies whose entire professions have been devoted to deceit and disinformation.

A society so sensitive to the horrors of war and the realities of its power dynamics that black bloc protesters would put more energy into disrupting appearances by people like Henry Kissinger and John Bolton than people like Milo Yiannopoulos.

A society so emotionally awake and empathetic in the way it operates that sociopathy and psychopathy become more of a disabling handicap than schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

A society so healthy that we no longer spend our creative energy figuring out ways to kill and exploit and manipulate each other and instead spend it figuring out ways to collaborate with each other and with our ecosystem for the benefit of everyone.

A natural society, the kind we imagined as small children that we would be inheriting, instead of this insane stew of oligarchic psyops and cultural mind viruses which rewards sociopathy and elevates social cannibals.

 

That society is already here in embryonic form, only hidden beneath a fog of confusion about what we are and where the stable ground of sanity is. Some of that fog was created accidentally, as the result of a species suddenly evolving extra brain matter at an unprecedented speed and stumbling out of the trees into a world of WiFi and processed meats. Most of the fog has been created deliberately, with countless generations of powerful humans inflicting narratives upon their subjects which further advantage the powerful and further disadvantage the powerless.

But sanity is right there, patiently waiting underneath the insanity. Waiting for us to open our eyelids and part the fog and remember our natural state. It’s right here, closer to us than our own breath, so simple and obvious that we can spend our whole lives overlooking it.

It’s that comfy homely chair where you can let your bum nestle into the folds of the earth, the vantage point from which you truly don’t mind what happens, you’re just curious as to what you’ll do next.

It’s that quiet still place from where inspiration bubbles up, just below the babble of the unreliable narrator of our patterned thinking mind.

It’s that place between sleep and at rest, right before the clamor of thoughts bustle in.

It’s where ideas spring from in the middle of the night or in the middle of a shower, from that relaxed, happy state that peeks through when you forget yourself for a moment.

It’s right here, just below the surface of the made-up matrix of mind gunk.

This is the place from which our sane society will be birthed into the world.

Sink in and live from here whenever you remember to.

Let it be birthed through you.

________________________

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitterthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

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