Our Big Tech Overlords Yanked Yet Another Covid Video We Apparently Can’t Handle

Our Big Tech Overlords Yanked Yet Another Covid Video We Apparently Can’t Handle

YouTube has pulled yet another Project Veritas video.

The now-infamous video of Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer’s director of research and development in strategic operations and mRNA scientific planning, giving up information on #DirectedEvolution and Pfizer’s plan to continue profiting from the Covid vaccines is still available in full on Rumble.

As Tucker Carlson introduced the story Thursday night, he said:

Consider the story that did not break today. … In the 24 hours since Project Veritas posted this footage, it has been viewed more than 12 million times on Twitter. No other media outlet has covered this story at all. … [You’d think you could] just go online and find out about it. Well Google, the biggest search engine in the world, which has a monopoly on search in this country … appears to have gone out of its way to make it much more difficult for users to learn anything about the Pfizer executive pictured in the footage.

Apparently, Carlson’s sources found what so many others suspected immediately after the Project Veritas story broke — that Google appeared to mask and misdirect its search results almost immediately. That seems as clear a sign as any of the collusion between Big Pharma and Big Tech.

That’s not a far-fetched accusation. Consider The Wall Street Journal’s 2019 investigation, “How Google Interferes With Its Search Algorithms and Changes Your Results.” Among other things, they found, “Despite publicly denying doing so, Google keeps blacklists to remove certain sites or prevent others from surfacing in certain types of results.” Imagine how they’ve perfected this in the last few years.

By Friday evening, YouTube yanked Project Veritas’s Pfizer video, which had 800,000 views before it was censored. Luckily, it was still alive and well on Twitter with 20 million views.

After that, Rumble tweeted:

UPDATE: It seems like YouTube has removed @Project_Veritas’s video. In response, Rumble will hold the line against this outrageous censorship by keeping the video up and even featuring it on our homepage.

Censorship dies on Rumble.

Accusations of YouTube “censorship” have been rampant: from issues related to the Jan. 6 Committee and Covid vaccines, to climate change and public appearances by former President Donald Trump (presumably because he continues to question the results of the 2020 election; however, Google began censoring him long before that, supposedly for “false accusations” about Joe Biden.)

Holding Big Tech Accountable

One has to wonder how long we are going to tolerate sources such as Google/YouTube deciding what we should or shouldn’t see. Freedom-loving Americans should be actively pursuing lawsuits to hold these monolithic companies accountable.

In this regard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should be commended for his work. Kennedy, along with multiple other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit on Jan. 10 making antitrust and constitutional claims against corporate media outlets. The suit alleges the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), an industry partnership started in March 2020 by several of the world’s largest news organizations, partnered with Big Tech firms to collectively censor online news. Google/YouTube is one of the “core partners” of the TNI.

This is a huge step in the right direction. Yet even now, as many people are waking up to the fact that their friends and loved ones may have been harmed by mRNA shots marketed as “vaccines,” there is no great public backlash against YouTube for censoring questions or warnings that might have informed the public about the risks of the Covid jabs.

Big Tech Runs Roughshod

Large YouTube channels such as Russell Brand’s and Dr. John Campbell’s still have to speak vaguely about anything Covid-related to their millions of subscribers, just so they won’t get shut down — as if they lived under communist or fascist rule.

The bottom line is that Big Tech is running roughshod over us. Beginning with YouTube’s Chief Executive Officer Susan Wojcicki, and on up the ladder to Google and parent company Alphabet, headed by Sundar Pichai, it becomes clear that the looming elephant in the room has grown too big. Imagine a 21st-century, augmented reality version of “You can’t fight city hall.”

“Every single CEO supposedly for the last 20 years has been talking about the free and open internet,” explains Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski. “They’ve been parading like the most important thing is to not regulate the internet and keep it free and open. Then all of a sudden in the last three or four years, everyone’s parading the opposite: Let’s censor it and let’s have a controlled internet. Never in my life could I ever have imagined that happening.”

In a Fox Nation special earlier this month that everyone concerned with censorship and free speech should watch, Pavlovski sat down with Carlson to discuss internet suppression and the birth of Rumble. It is an eye-opening explanation of how our digital information works, and of the uphill battle we face in taking back our First Amendment rights.

Pavlovski explained:

These companies all respectively have a monopoly on their certain division of the internet: Google is search, YouTube is video, Twitter is microblogging, and Facebook is social networking. … It’s a fun party for them. … Think about how big these companies are in comparison to the railroads and the tobacco companies in [the early 20th century] — these are even more powerful and have even more control than those companies did at that time. … So I don’t think they want to let that go. They’ve certainly abused their power.

Backlash for Critics

And don’t think Pavlovski hasn’t already felt a backlash after his appearance on Fox Nation. Less than 10 days later, Rolling Stone ran a piece titled, “Far-Right Superstars Are Failing on Rumble. Who’s Winning?

Rolling Stone is part of the Penske Media Corporation (PMC), a growing near-monopoly run by billionaire media tycoon Jay Penske. In July 2021, PMC brought in Noah Shachtman, former editor at The Daily Beast, to be Rolling Stone’s new editor-in-chief. A former Bill Clinton campaign staffer, it’s clear in which direction his bias lies.

In order to give Rumble a thorough dissing, Rolling Stone sought out E. Rosalie Li, “a public health scholar and disinformation researcher at Johns Hopkins University.” She also runs Hoaxlines, an organization that researches “media manipulation and unethical efforts to influence the public.” Li explains that Covid lockdowns “scared people who believed that the government was dangerous.” She then laments that there was “life-threatening” information posted on different platforms, and not enough of it was removed concerning Covid and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. As a result, the masses fell victim to “conspiracy theories.”

The article then launches into a full-blown justification for censorship, quoting yet another misinformation expert, and explaining that as the masses peruse various internet platforms, they are becoming affiliated with like-minded believers. This, they claim, is dangerous because together they will morph into extremists spreading evil misinformation. And that can’t be allowed to happen.

It’s clear that with the rise of “misinformation experts” (there are currently 245 such code-worded job openings on Indeed), YouTube isn’t about to back down in its assault on free speech.

Lawsuits Offer Hope

Luckily, there are some targeted lawsuits coming before the courts, including the Supreme Court, that will challenge Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law “grants a liability shield to internet platforms that protects them from being held responsible for their users’ posts, while also allowing them to decide what stays up or comes down,” CNBC reports. These cases, outlined here, will help determine the bounds of free expression on the internet.

In the last few years, thanks to cancel culture and the seemingly unbridled power of Big Tech, we’ve come to understand how fragile free speech really is.

Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe recently copied YouTube’s CEO Wojcicki on a tweet to Elon Musk, asking him how much it would cost to buy YouTube. He’s got a point. In the short term, we may be left praying that Musk or other benevolent billionaires can come to the aid of saving the First Amendment. There is no future for America without it.


Source

Court Slaps Down California’s Attempt To Muzzle Doctors Who Dissent From Covid Groupthink

Court Slaps Down California’s Attempt To Muzzle Doctors Who Dissent From Covid Groupthink

A federal judge halted California’s attempt to censor doctors when, last Wednesday, the court enjoined the state statute that banned medical professionals from spreading purported “misinformation” or “disinformation” to their patients about Covid-19. The decision represents the latest victory against the authoritarian edicts that quickly followed the outbreak of the pandemic three years ago but continue to this day.

In August of 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), adding a new provision to California’s extensive regulations governing the professional and ethical conduct of physicians — regulations that ban practices ranging from human cloning to performing a pelvic exam on an unconscious or anesthetized female patient without her knowledge or consent.

The new statute sought to stop what the legislature called a “pernicious” threat to public health — doctors who spread “misinformation” or “disinformation” to their patients about Covid-19. Specifically, AB 2098 provides:

It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

The California law defines “disinformation” as “misinformation the [physician] deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead,” while “misinformation” is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

In passing the law, the California legislature made multiple “findings,” including facts purveyed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that there is a much higher risk of death for unvaccinated individuals from Covid-19 than the vaccinated. The legislature also found that “the spread of misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines has weakened public confidence and placed lives at serious risk” and that “major news outlets have reported that some of the most dangerous propagators of inaccurate information regarding the COVID-19 vaccines are licensed health care professionals.”  

Soon after Newsom signed AB 2098, a group of doctors and organizations representing doctors filed suit in federal court in California. The plaintiffs in Høeg, et al. v. Newsom, et al. argued the statute violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and their constitutional right to due process. The plaintiffs in Høeg then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the state from enforcing AB 2098 until the resolution of the doctors’ constitutional challenges.

On Wednesday, presiding Judge William Shubb, a George H.W. Bush appointee, granted the motion and entered an injunction barring California from enforcing the law.  

In his ruling, Shubb first held that the plaintiffs had “standing” or the right to sue because, if allowed to go into effect, the doctors faced an actual injury in the form of disciplinary action. The court then held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim — “likelihood of success on the merits” is the controlling standard at the preliminary injunction stage — because the terms “misinformation” and “contemporary scientific consensus” were unconstitutionally vague, making it impossible for a reasonable person to know what the law prohibited.  

The court further stressed that the phrase “contemporary scientific consensus” lacks an understandable meaning because it has no technical meaning within the medical community and was left undefined in AB 2098. Covid-19 is a “quickly evolving area of science that in many aspects eludes consensus,” the court noted, reasoning that while the phrase “contrary to the standard of care” is a clearly defined term in law, by adding the undefined language, “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus,” the California legislature made the statute “grammatically incoherent.”

Because the court concluded the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their due process claim given the vagueness of AB 2098, Shubb held he did not need to reach the plaintiffs’ argument that the California law violated the First Amendment by preventing medical professionals from openly discussing issues with Covid-19 shots, alternative treatments and therapies for Covid-19, or the merits of universal masking with their patients. Shubb, however, added that AB 2098 “clearly implicates First Amendment concerns.” 

Following Wednesday’s decision in Høeg, the corporate press quickly coalesced around the vaccine-denier narrative by highlighting that one of the plaintiffs in the case was the Children’s Health Defense, an “advocacy organization” connected to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Then, rather than focus on the significance of the court’s decision and California’s blatant violation of doctors’ constitutional rights, the left-leaning media intoned that the Children’s Health Defense has “long promoted false information about standard childhood vaccines.”

This tact tracks the media’s approach to AB 2098 following its enactment, when the legacy press reported favorably on the new law, claiming the California legislature was “trying to strike a balance between free speech and public health” while highlighting laws passed in other countries that criminalized the “spread of vaccine misinformation.”  

The reporting at the time also quoted supposed experts who, while admitting the law likely would not survive First Amendment scrutiny, nonetheless opined that it “doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.” “People have died because they made choices based on false information spread by people in a position to know better,” one so-called expert said.

The court’s decision enjoining California’s AB 2098 represents a solid victory in the fight against the authoritarianism pushed under the auspices of protecting the public from Covid-19, but the sentiments voiced by the legislature and experts — that they know better — should nonetheless trouble Americans.


Anne Courchaine is an attorney, formerly in private practice but now a stay-at-home mom, who lives with her husband and soon-to-be three children in Phoenix, Arizona.

Source

New Emails Suggest Twitter Misled Public On ‘Hamilton 68’ Data Pushing Russia Hoax

New emails released as part of the “Twitter Files” show the company appears to have misled reporters, politicians, and the public, allowing a high-level disinformation operation to fester in government and media. A comparison of emails uncovered by Matt Taibbi with the company’s public statements in 2018 reveals serious discrepancies.

This operation, known as Hamilton 68, was founded by former FBI agent and current MSNBC contributor Clint Watts. It functions as a digital “dashboard” where journalists and academics can gauge alleged “Russian disinformation” being spread by specific lists of people online.

Taibbi’s latest report on internal Twitter documents included emails from former Head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth proving the company knew the anti-Trump dashboard was spreading false information that wrongfully classified Americans as Russian bots. This allowed the data dashboard to fuel false media and Democrat claims that President Donald Trump had treasonously colluded with Russia, hamstringing Trump’s execution of his presidential duties.

Taibbi discovered that Twitter “reverse-engineered” Hamilton 68’s methodology to recreate its highly publicized list of alleged Russian bots. Publicly, though, Twitter was feigning ignorance.

In a Jan. 3, 2018 email, Roth said his reverse-engineering proved Hamilton 68’s claims of providing data to prove Russian disinformation was festering on social media were “totally bogus.”

“They don’t know that we have the list, though, and they’ve refused to release it,” he wrote.

Roth recommended hitting the Alliance for Securing Democracy, one of the groups behind Hamilton 68, with an ultimatum: “either you release the list, or we will.”

The timeline here is important. Roth reverse-engineered the list on Oct. 3, 2017, and emailed it to his colleagues in a Google Doc. Over the next several months, Twitter employees repeatedly vented their frustrations with Hamilton 68 over email. The amount of media attention the project was generating created a public relations headache for Twitter, so they were eager to expose the truth about the dashboard.

Frenzied politicians desperately clinging to the Russia-collusion narrative started to pressure Facebook and Twitter in early 2018. When Republicans on the House Intelligence committee penned a now-vindicated internal report on FBI abuses, a hashtag that said “#ReleaseTheMemo” went viral on Twitter.

“When the hashtag went viral, [Rep. Adam] Schiff had a theory that it wasn’t the American public that was interested in abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” Mollie Hemingway noted all the way back in 2018. “Nope, it was Russians! Secret Russian bots were trying to make it look like Americans were interested in FISA abuse against a Trump campaign affiliate.”

Citing Hamilton 68, Schiff and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, wrote a letter to Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg demanding their companies crack down on alleged Russian bots. Twitter responded with a letter defending its work to police foreign interference. An analysis of #ReleaseTheMemo, General Counsel Vijaya Gadde wrote back, “has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia.”

Worse, Gadde claimed Twitter could not evaluate Hamilton 68’s claims. “Because the Hamilton Dashboard’s account list is not available to the public, we are unable to offer any specific context on the accounts it includes,” he wrote. “There may be individual cases where Twitter accounts are operating within our rules but are included in the Dashboard. We have offered to review the list of accounts contained in the Dashboard and this offer remains open.”

Yet the emails Taibbi uncovered five years later show Twitter had the list for months before that point. Roth himself wrote, “They don’t know that we have the list,” three weeks earlier.

In mid-February, Emily Horne wrote, “we’re working extensively with reporters [off-the-record] and on background to explain the flaws in Hamilton 68’s methodology (without getting into our full knowledge of it),” before adding, “we have to be careful in how much we push back on ASD publicly.”

Horne’s concern, along with that of a colleague who was “frustrated” but understood the need to “play a longer game,” was that Twitter couldn’t kill critical media stories with off-the-record warnings if it didn’t also go public with what it knew. Both former Twitter employees now work in the Biden administration.

Hamilton 68 intentionally concocted junk science and concealed important parts of their methodology to bolster a narrative against their political opponents. The intended end result was to silence and discredit all dissent. A stunning number of journalists at allegedly top publications and even researchers at allegedly elite universities took the bait, as Taibbi’s story shows.

Twitter’s internal records raise questions about what key Democratic politicians like Schiff and Feinstein knew about Hamilton 68. Did Twitter brief them privately on its public knowledge of the list? Were any reporters briefed on that as well? Was Gadde seriously unaware that Roth had the list for months at the time of his letter?

The evidence suggests clearly that Twitter employees — who never counted on Elon Musk buying the company and releasing their emails — actively misled the public about a powerful political hoax.


Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist and host of Federalist Radio Hour. She previously covered politics as a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. Prior to joining the Examiner, Emily was the spokeswoman for Young America’s Foundation. She’s interviewed leading politicians and entertainers and appeared regularly as a guest on major television news programs, including “Fox News Sunday,” “Media Buzz,” and “The McLaughlin Group.” Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Real Clear Politics, and more. Emily also serves as director of the National Journalism Center, co-host of the weekly news show “Counter Points: Friday” and a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Forum. Originally from Wisconsin, she is a graduate of George Washington University.

Source

Breaking the Silence: Do mRNA Vaccine Harms Outweigh Benefits?

As someone who has always questioned the safety and efficacy of the Covid ‘injectables’, I’ve thought long and hard about why more doctors haven’t voiced concerns, why so many seem unaware of the documented side effects, and why so few are sounding the alarm.

To help me answer this question, I spoke with renowned UK cardiologist and heart-health campaigner Dr Aseem Malhotra, who has been breaking the silence.

‘Double-jabbed’ Malhotra originally supported the program, until a series of events sent him digging into the evidence. What he discovered alarmed him and resulted in the publication of two evidence-based, peer-reviewed papers along with a call for the immediate suspension of the Covid mRNA roll-out. He tells his story:

‘Despite being one of pharma’s biggest critics, I could not have expected or conceived of the possibility that these vaccines, these new vaccines, could cause harm. So very early on I was one of the first to have two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and I helped out at a vaccine centre in January 2021.

About a month later I had a conversation with a friend of mine, film director Gurinder Chadha (who was) vaccine hesitant. I said to her, “Listen, traditional vaccines are still one of the safest pharmacological interventions in the history of medicine. That doesn’t mean that all vaccines are completely safe. No drug is completely safe. But when you compare them to other pharmacological interventions I’ve talked about and campaigned on, for example diabetes drugs, blood pressure pills or statins, they are far, far safer.”’

Personal Loss

Malhotra further explains his view during a Good Morning Britain interview.

‘I said, “There are rational concerns for vaccine hesitancy and irrational concerns. The rational concerns are when looking at what the pharmaceutical industry has done for years — they’ve been found guilty of fraud on many occasions — and prescribed medications are the third most common cause of death after heart disease and cancer.” So, I was being open, and I felt compassion for people who were vaccine-hesitant. And I said, “In my opinion, as it stands at the moment, traditional vaccines are the safest.”

‘Six months later my father suffered an unexplained… cardiac arrest. The post-mortem didn’t make sense, he was a very fit guy, yet he had very severe narrowings of two of his coronary arteries. I had known his cardiac history inside out, we had done imaging on him a few years earlier. I found myself thinking “hold on a minute, he’s got a rapid progression of coronary artery disease when he’s doing really well during lockdown, walking 10,000 steps a day and eating well. This doesn’t make sense.“ And I could only attribute it at the time to stress, I couldn’t think of any other reason.’

Over the following months, emerging data led Malhotra to question whether the vaccine was linked to his father’s death. The first was an abstract published in Circulation (November 8, 2021) by US cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr Steven Gundry, who followed several hundred of his patients after the mRNA (Moderna/Pfizer) jabs. Gundry found that inflammatory markers correlated with heart disease risk went through the roof. On average, that change increased the risk of those people having a heart attack or stroke within the next five years, from 11 per cent up to 25 per cent. This increase in risk is massive.

Cover-Up

The next event raised more alarm bells for Malhotra.

‘Within two weeks of that abstract, a whistle-blower contacted me from a prestigious institution in the country, and said that a group of researchers had accidentally found through imaging studies that mRNA vaccines were increasing heart attack risk through inflammation, but the lead researcher said they were not going to publish these findings because it may affect funding from pharma.

‘I then felt a duty and contacted GB News saying, “There is a Circulation abstract but also something else I’ve heard,” and I spoke about it on GB News. That interview went viral … with me raising questions and saying, “We need to investigate this.”’

The pushback was strong.

‘One very prestigious medical body that I am affiliated with received a number of anonymous complaints from doctors that I was bringing the medical profession into disrepute, and that as I was in an association with them, I was bringing them into disrepute. I was then asked to formally respond,’ he relates. Malhotra responded and let off with a warning.

Assessment

This experience made him realise how difficult it would be to publicly expose things, so he decided to critically appraise the evidence himself.

‘When I broke the data down, it became very clear, the harms of the mRNA vaccine massively outweigh the benefits. It was not even close! And that’s based on the highest level of quality of data we will ever have.’

The evidence comes from the original double-blind, randomised control trials, that led to the approval of both Pfizer and Moderna by regulators worldwide. Malhotra explains,

‘In a reanalysis of the original trials with the Wuhan strain, eminent scientists essentially found you were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event — for example hospitalisation, disability, or a life-changing event – than you were to be hospitalised with Covid. That means, in essence, the mRNA vaccine should likely never, ever have been approved for anybody in the first place.’

He continues:

‘The randomised control trial data showed a risk of serious adverse events of at least 1 in 800 within two months. It’s probably much higher than that as you go forward because one of the mechanisms is accelerated heart disease. My dad died six months after the second dose of the vaccine; many people are going to be dropping dead and having heart attacks months after having the vaccine because it accelerates coronary artery disease.

But other vaccines have been pulled for far less: the swine flu vaccine was withdrawn in 1976 following episodes of Guillain Barre syndrome at a rate of 1/100,000; rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn in 1999 for causing a form of bowel obstruction (intussusception) in 1/10,000; this is 1/800 at least. So, it’s a no-brainer. The question is: why have they not pulled it? Some say, “It was an emergency use authorisation.” Well, it’s no longer an emergency.’

This begs the question: if the evidence is now so clear, why does the silence continue? Well, I’m glad you asked. In a follow-up article, I will explore the factors contributing to the great silence — hint, it’s not just AHPRA — and how we can move from here.

Encouragingly, if recent events are anything to go by, the silence is (slowly) breaking. The past few weeks have seen appearances by doctors on mainstream media voicing jab safety concerns, including Australia’s Dr Kerryn Phelps, and Malhotra’s recent truth bomb drop on a live BBC broadcast receiving millions of views on Twitter. Thanks Elon.

They are joined by other eminent professors and clinicians sounding the alarm and calling for governments to ‘Stop the Shots’.

____

Originally published in Spectator Australia. Photo by Maksim Goncharenok.

Thank the Source

Vimeo Nukes ‘Dead Name’ Documentary Highlighting The Horrors Of Transgender Ideology

Vimeo Nukes ‘Dead Name’ Documentary Highlighting The Horrors Of Transgender Ideology

Vimeo nuked a new documentary highlighting the horrors of transgender ideology on Monday.

The film, titled “Dead Name” and produced by Taylor Reece, was scrubbed from the platform before it had even been available to viewers for a month. It was exclusively released on Vimeo but is now available on deadnamedocumentary.com, where viewers can rent the title for $9.99 or purchase the movie for $14.99.

“Vimeo did not provide a reason,” Reece told The Federalist of the platform’s censorship. “We’re just glad that people will continue to be able to screen this film, which is an important catalyst for discussion nationally on a subject that is germane to parents everywhere.”

In a statement to The Federalist on Monday afternoon, Vimeo said the documentary violated the platform’s terms on “discriminatory or hateful” material.

“We can confirm that Vimeo removed the video in question for violating our Terms of Service prohibiting discriminatory or hateful content,” the company wrote in an email. “We strive to enforce these policies objectively and consistently across our platform.”

The company did not immediately respond to a follow-up inquiry over what exactly in the “Dead Name” documentary was “discriminatory” or “hateful.”

The film’s online suppression came less than two weeks after Senior Contributor Nathanael Blake published a review of the documentary for The Federalist. “‘Dead Name’ Documentary Shows Kids Aren’t The Only Victims Of Trans Radicals — Their Parents Are Too,” headlined the review.

“‘Dead Name’ captures the pain and confusion of parents trying to protect their children from self-harm induced by an ideology that teaches them to despise their bodies,” Blake wrote. “This is a necessary film because it is not a feel-good film. Only one of the stories has what could be called a happy ending; the others conclude in uncertainty or worse.”

“Dead Name” was released on Dec. 20, roughly six months after the blockbuster release of the Daily Wire’s hit documentary on the topic, “What Is A Woman?” in which podcaster Matt Walsh focuses on the broader culture wars surrounding gender.

In a similar vein as the spotlight “Dead Name” puts on parents losing their children to radical gender theory, the Independent Women’s Forum, a D.C.-based think tank, has also been chronicling stories of families caught up in the confusion with its “Identity Crisis” series.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Source

Incentivizing Censorship: A Snitch in Every Skull. “The Totalitarian Virus”

Incentivizing Censorship: A Snitch in Every Skull. “The Totalitarian Virus”

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

An informational iron curtain is coming down across the West, and its architects are determined to make examples out of those who refuse to pick a side.

Our Democracy™ has adopted a zero-tolerance policy for pollution of the information ecosystem, and the Thought Police are standing by to halt rogue infodemics in their tracks, lest the people lose trust in their institutions.

Dr. Tim Coles, a freelance writer and postdoctoral researcher until recently at the University of Plymouth didn’t realize he was in their crosshairs until he found himself locked out of his university email account in October. Tech support was no help; department staff refused to talk to him, closing ranks and sending him a threatening email demanding he cease contact. Clearly, he had violated some unwritten law. But what?

The chain of emails that had culminated in his removal only raised further questions about why an apparent stranger whom Plymouth has refused to name – a university employee, he suspects – had complained about his writing for Australian magazine Nexus to his old PhD examiner.

In a Kafkaesque turn, the complaint lacked a single concrete accusation of wrongdoing that Coles could defend himself against, instead equivocating around familiar “conspiracy theorist” tropes. At any rate, no one had thought to consult Coles, perhaps believing him to be a disgruntled ex-student trading on his old university email rather than a researcher whose work at the university was funded by an outside trust and had nothing to do with his political writing. Rather than pause for clarification, his PhD examiner appeared to jump in with both feet, urging tech staff to help get Coles “off [the university’s] books.”

While a prolific writer on many controversial topics – US funding and training of neo-Nazis in Ukraine, the West’s neocolonial plunder of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism, and Big Pharma’s giant power-grab under cover of Covid-19 unholy alliance of Big Pharma and Big Tech amid the coronavirus outbreak are just a few – Coles believes he ran afoul of the university censors with a series of articles about intelligence agencies blackmailing people with child sexual abuse that ran in Nexus not long before the cancellation effort began. That particular subject has a tendency to get journalists killed, and Coles wonders if his ejection from Plymouth might be a warning shot from groups displeased with his inquiries. He acknowledges, however, that the timing may be a coincidence – Hope Not Hate and other intelligence-controlled censorship advocates were apparently trying to have Nexus banned in the UK around the same time for its publication of unorthodox views on Covid-19.

While he believes the evidence in the email chain is enough to prove wrongdoing by the university, Coles couldn’t even file a complaint through the normal channels, as his inquisitors had roped the complaints department into their conspiracy by including them in the email chain. He has considered releasing the messages publicly as a last resort, but first plans to employ an outside arbitrator and give the System one last chance – more than he was given, at any rate.

Lessons from The Lobby

Coles is far from the first to be booted from a British university campus for thought crime. He sees parallels between his case and that of David Miller, the University of Bristol sociology professor who was subjected to a ferocious academic inquisition and ultimately drummed out of his post in late 2021 after the Board of Deputies of British Jews deliberately misinterpreted comments he had made about Israel weaponizing Jewish students abroad. The university’s Union of Jewish Students had been attacking him for years before seizing upon the supposedly discriminatory comment, which they only heard because they had sent in an activist ’spy’ to monitor one of his classes  – ironically validating the professor’s claims better than his own arguments could have.

Like Coles, Miller was never directly confronted by his accuser, who opted for mealy-mouthed pseudo-accusations (“conspiracy theorist,” “inciting hatred”) over potentially-disprovable crimes. Like Plymouth, Bristol took the side of the accuser against its employee almost reflexively. Former Labour MP Chris Williamson, himself a victim of the Israeli lobby’s devastating smear machine, joined the Support David Miller campaign in warning that the university’s failure to stand up for the professor would only encourage “bad faith actors” to pursue further censorship.

Shortly before the lobby finally convinced Miller’s university to mount an investigation into his supposed bigotry, he observed that such pressure tactics were imported from the Israel lobby in the US and pointed out that if any other foreign lobby attempted to wage such total war on its critics, they would be “laughed out of the room.” But Coles’ experience suggests other groups have taken lessons from the Israelis – and that Williamson’s warning was prescient.

Academic “cancel culture” is a well-known scourge of American campuses, where careless tweeting costs lives and professors can be axed for using the wrong pronouns. But while most discussion of the phenomenon centers on the targeting of conservative professors, it has targeted left-wing heterodoxy with equal fury, as tenured New York University media studies professor Mark Crispin Miller discovered when a student demanded his firing via Twitter after taking offense to a discussion questioning the utility of masks in his 2020 class on Propaganda.

Like Coles and the other Miller across the pond, Miller was attacked by university colleagues with vague allegations of “attacks on students and others in our community,” “aggressions and microaggressions,” and “explicit hate speech” and an investigation was launched behind his back even in the absence of any specific forbidden act. Administrators went one step further and contacted all his students to remind them of the CDC’s mask guidance, lest their fragile minds have been corrupted by the conspiracy theorist in the classroom. They couldn’t fire him – he was tenured, after all – but they did their best to make his life so miserable that he would leave, forbidding him from teaching his beloved Propaganda class, and he has been on sabbatical since.

Even Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, was recently denied a fellowship at the Carr Center for Human Rights, part of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, on the basis of wrongthink – what its dean described as his “anti-Israel bias.” Roth has toed the line on foreign policy groupthink elsewhere, dutifully demonizing Putin, Assad, Trump, and so on as the needs of Empire demanded. But his refusal to ignore Israel’s increasingly bold apartheid policies got him the David Miller treatment despite years of faithful service. If Roth isn’t safe, many academics have begun to wonder, what the hell are they going to do to me?!

Will Censor for Food

While Coles questions if universities were ever really the freethinkers’ utopia so many academic misfits yearn for, there is no denying groupthink has tightened its hold in recent years. While an academic might once have been left alone to research controversial subjects on his own time so long as he didn’t embarrass his employer, this laissez-faire approach has been replaced by an administrative panopticon that is both hyper-responsive and reflexively condemnatory – a “cottage industry of shutting people down,” in the words of its recent target. Censorship has been outsourced from the state and its corporate minions to “academics and think tanks who are given a well-funded government hammer so they see everything as a nail of disinformation,” Coles explains. Not simply salaried, they are financially incentivized to bag-and-tag as many pieces of “disinformation” as they can, essentially bounty hunters for inconvenient truths, enabling a much tighter, more granular control of information than was ever possible under a traditional totalitarian model.

These programs and campaigns – with names like Integrity Initiative, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Trusted News Initiative – initially appear to be independent nonprofits that just happen to share a common devotion to fighting fake news.

However, their cooperation is more than superficial, with many of the same entities ultimately directing their actions as they work together to artificially muscle the discourse in the desired direction, choking off competing narratives while maintaining plausible deniability regarding their connections to the state.

In this model of soft totalitarianism, the dissident is not so much ordered to cease publishing objectionable ideas, or even threatened with execution or creative torture. He is merely subjected to mounting insults, ‘nudged’ in certain directions, and gradually stripped of resources, especially any public platform he may have had in accordance with his refusal to follow the rules. Amid this complex ballet of carrot and stick, he is constantly reminded that these are his decisions, making him (in his own mind, at least) a willing participant in his own spiritual suffocation.

Fact-checkers, once mere newsroom employees tasked with verifying the details of major stories, have been artificially elevated into a caste of gatekeepers, deemed impartial arbiters of truth even as their donor lists burst with conflicts of interest from Pierre Omidyar to Bill Gates to George Soros. This veneer of independence allows them much greater latitude than any equivalent government body, as the ignominious collapse of the US’ Disinformation Governance Board last year proved. This official Ministry of Truth, which would have operated out of the Department of Homeland Security, was a bridge too far even for the American media establishment, which had long since embraced its unofficial equivalent censoring tweets and Facebook posts to keep the world safe for democracy.

All it took to get English-speaking countries to accept the need for these newly-minted (the International Fact Checking Network was only launched in 2015) cognitive babysitters was for a few pathological liars to blame Trump’s 2016 electoral victory and Brexit on Russian disinformation.

Never mind that neither hypothesis was ever substantiated, or that both have since been thoroughly discredited – unfiltered access to information has joined the lengthy list of threats to social harmony, and the fact-checkers, having tasted power, are unlikely to return to the newsroom. Given that a free press is integral to a functioning democracy, it goes without saying that any regime looking to dismantle the latter would want to get the former out of the way.

New Dawn in Old Bottles

No sooner had Coles been chased out of his university for his writing in one Australian alt-media magazine then he was engulfed in a censorship firestorm over another. An article appeared earlier this month in New Zealand news outlet Stuff excoriating bookstore chain Whitcoulls for carrying the latest edition of New Dawn, a publication which proudly bills itself as a “forum for alternative, non-mainstream ideas that question consensus reality.” Stuff’s coverage berated the bookstore for exposing unsuspecting customers to the jungle of “conspiracy theories” barely restrained within its pages (full disclosure: I have also contributed writing to New Dawn), focusing its rage on Coles’ “The curious case of Brenton Tarrant,” about the Christchurch mosque shooter.

When Whitcoulls did not immediately capitulate, “disinformation expert” Kate Hannah was called in to warn Kiwis who picked up the magazine that they were enabling “dark agendas” seeking to “destabilize liberal democracy.” Reading Coles’ article wasn’t just engaging in wrongthink, but actually committing a crime, she explained, because the article included information on how to access the illegal-in-New-Zealand helmet-cam video Tarrant recorded while shooting his way through the mosque. Just reading about where to find the video might run afoul of hate speech laws, she mused in a radio interview.

Of course, the article includes no such instructions, nor does it – as Hannah claimed – claim Tarrant didn’t shoot anyone. Coles is baffled by the disinfo expert’s disinfo, but suspects the reason they didn’t include his name (standard practice in establishment hit-pieces) in the pressure campaign is that he could justifiably sue for libel. But the mere threat of legal repercussions was sufficient to keep 99.9% of Kiwis away from the forbidden magazine, and perhaps sensing no sales in its future, Whitcoulls finally pulled the issue from its shelves.

New Zealand’s size and isolation make it a perfect experimental laboratory, and the other Four Eyes haven’t hesitated to use it as such. Nor have the Israelis, whose operation was exposed during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The 2019 shooting that launched the current touchless torture regime was preceded as such events often are by a series of odd ‘coincidences’ and foreshadowings. Just a few months before the massacre, a group of American survivors of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting visited the city to discuss “living through a tragedy” with their Kiwi counterparts; two Parkland survivors and a Sandy Hook survivor allegedly committed suicide in the months following the mosque killings. A police drill just happened to be taking place near the fleeing gunman, allowing participants to “heroically” capture him in what media dutifully described as a “hell of a coincidence.”

The speedy gun-grab that followed the tragedy left citizens helpless in the claws of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and the subsequent clampdown on the internet was unprecedented in any other western “democracy,” with prison sentences meted out for merely sharing a link. Ostensibly to prevent anyone from reading Tarrant’s manifesto or watching the curiously videogame-like footage of the killings, the rules had the effect of banning access to entire video archives, international forums, and other information resources that might have helped the country’s residents make sense of what had just been done to them, and they were designed to be copied by the other four Eyes – or any other country that should want them.

While all five Eyes adopted unprecedented controls on social media during Covid-19, New Zealand went much further than its peers in controlling the actual publication of news. In March 2020, facing rumors that lockdown was imminent, Ardern warned upstanding citizens to avoid all unauthorized sources of information, urging them to stick with the government’s official site as “your single source of truth.”

The message didn’t age well – New Zealand was locked down within the week – but her point had gotten across loud and clear. Arrested while protesting Auckland’s return to lockdown in 2021 over just three “cases,” popular radio host and pandemic dissident Vinny Eastwood was only released on the conditions that he remain under house arrest 24/7 and stay off the internet – draconian requirements for a man who made his living live-streaming. He was later permitted back online, but only on the condition that he not advocate against Covid-19 restrictions – a deliberately subjective line in the sand meant to encourage self-censorship above all.

While the media establishment overflowed with praise for Ardern over her iron-fisted suppression of the population – er, pandemic – no one has thought to ask why, if the West questions all Covid-19 stats coming out of China due to government control of all information sources, they believed the numbers coming out of New Zealand. Even news sites like Stuff, which describes itself as “fiercely independent,” are actually public-private partnerships – in this case funded by the New Zealand government and the Google News Initiative, powered by the bonanza of helicopter money that was dumped on the news media in 2020 to fight the “infodemic” of Covid-19 “disinformation.”

That the campaign against New Dawn was no organic outrage was clear – Coles’ article is the last in the issue, and the likelihood of an indignant civilian pawing through 70 pages of conspiracy contraband just to find something they can claim is illegal approaches zero. Its favorable result means it will likely become the blueprint for future book-burning campaigns.

But why go after a couple of obscure Australian conspiracy magazines?

Especially in New Zealand, but increasingly in the US and Europe, Big Tech no longer allows the average user to stumble upon the kind of content published by New Dawn or Nexus.

Even non-Google search results from once-reliable alternatives like DuckDuckGo and Brave have been scrubbed clean of all deviations from the establishment line on topics like Covid-19 or the war in Ukraine, let alone the Christchurch shooting, and as Coles remarked, the censorship is even creeping through time into the Wayback Machine, the internet researcher’s go-to that once contained archives of much of the internet dating back decades – but now increasingly turns up error pages or sloppily retconned fact-checks. However, Kiwis browsing at Whitcoulls had at their fingertips a powderkeg of new information, rendered all the more volatile by three years spent in informational quarantine. Just as a person locked down for months will see her immune system suffer for lack of outside stimulation, any novel pathogens hitting her much harder when she finally goes outside, the Good Citizen who imbibed only Ardern-approved data for three years will likely be unable to muster even the slightest argument against whatever outrageous claims she finds in New Dawn and perhaps become lost to the weak grasp of establishment propaganda forever.

There’s an easy solution to this problem, should New Zealand want to solve it. Teach children to think critically, instead of the dumbed-down “media literacy” programs being promoted by every self-proclaimed “disinfo expert” this side of PropOrNot. Thought-stopping “information hygiene” techniques (Google it! Look it up on Wikipedia!) and reflexive appeals to authority (only a scientist can interpret  that study for you!) do not help an individual resist persuasion. But a population armed with the ability to recognize an official lie and dismantle it would not allow themselves to be locked down over a few cases of a disease they were almost 100% certain to survive anyway – so of course New Dawn couldn’t be permitted to question Christchurch. It is the (shaky) foundation on which Ardern’s hastily-constructed police state was built. As rumors fly about her surprise resignation on Thursday and the media establishment rends its garments over how “unfairly” this “icon of many” was treated by “far-right extremists,” it seems clear her departure will be weaponized to further crack down on the increasingly nebulous specter of “hate speech.”

Replacing Replacement Theory       

Americans who believe the New Dawn affair could only have happened in an unarmed, isolated nation like New Zealand should pay attention to what their Congress is up to. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) earlier this month introduced a bill that would criminalize the publication of “antagonism based on ‘replacement theory’” and “hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group” on social media if it can be said that the perpetrator of a “white supremacy inspired hate crime” had encountered the material before committing the crime – or that if they had encountered the material, it could conceivably have motivated them to take such actions.

Without bothering to define such critical terms as “hate speech” or even “replacement theory,” often trotted out for effect when the speaker needs to strike an emotional chord, the bill leapfrogs pre-crime to a total reversal of cause and effect. A content creator can be charged with conspiracy to commit a white supremacy motivated hate crime so long as the actual criminal can be shown to have engaged with their content before committing the crime. In fact, they don’t even need to engage with it – so long as the content could theoretically motivate a “person predisposed to engaging in a white supremacy inspired hate crime” to, well, you know. It’s completely subjective, based on what a “reasonable person” would do when no “reasonable person” would be caught dead in the same room as this bill. This means if someone reads the nursery rhyme “Baa baa black sheep” – declared ‘problematic’ nearly a decade ago for its racial overtones – then picks up an AR-15 and shoots a black family at church, the nursery rhyme writers could be charged with conspiracy to commit a white supremacy-motivated hate crime. Jackson Lee herself cited the example of “someone making a post online that catches the attention of someone who then drives to North Texas and kills 20 Mexican Americans” to make clear precisely how unhinged she is.

It’s doubtful that such a case would make it to court, or lead to a conviction if it did, but public opinion – a product of think tank fellows rather than crowds – can turn on a dime. What sorority girl getting sloshed on margaritas in an oversized Cinco de Mayo sombrero in 2012 would have thought she’d be sentenced to remedial readings of “White Fragility” in 2022? The aim is not to create more work for the official censors but to spook the target into silence with fear of what could happen. Leaving the definition of “white supremacy” open-ended allows an ever-larger spectrum of opinion to be cordoned off as toxic, banned from university campuses and social media, and finally memory-holed as unthinkable. At the same time, actual racists like Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion are invited with open arms to travel the US speaking on university campuses, swastika tattoos and all. While the Anti-Defamation League is quick to tar and feather anyone who points out Israeli war crimes, the censorship-loving Jewish organization has issued what amounts to an official indulgence for Ukraine’s biggest Third Reich fanboys.

Given the FBI’s penchant for crafting terrorism plots out of whole cloth, it would be a simple matter to take out all online wrongthinkers in one fell swoop under the white supremacy conspiracy law – just set up the usual militia honeypot for disaffected white boys, hand them the gear and point them at the minority in question, and make sure a manifesto is found nearby conspicuously listing the websites of every influential dissident in America. While last year’s Missouri v. Biden lawsuit proved – and the Twitter Files confirmed – that social media platforms were being used by a dozen or more government agencies to circumvent First Amendment prohibitions on state censorship, this new arrangement would eliminate even the need for that end-run, requiring only the fig leaf of Unacceptable White Supremacist Beliefs™ to justify the most egregious constitutional abuses.

“Replacement theory” – the idea that white Americans and/or Europeans are being deliberately supplanted in “their” nations by swarthy foreign hordes to suit nefarious ruling class purposes – first entered the mainstream discourse when Tarrant, who titled his manifesto “The Great Replacement,” supposedly set out to kill as many Muslims as possible because they were out-breeding Europeans. Tarrant’s manifesto would have gotten quite a few people in trouble as white-supremacy conspirators, many of them dead – it includes poems from Dylan Thomas and Rudyard Kipling, memes, Wikipedia articles, and an infamous passage explicitly citing black conservative commentator Candace Owens as his ideological inspiration. Tarrant and copycats like Payton Gendron (the Buffalo supermarket shooter and friend of the FBI whose manifesto borrowed liberally from Tarrant and others) have helped transform the epithet “conspiracy theory” from CIA-sponsored smear to precursor of violent extremism, though they couldn’t have done it without UNESCO, the World Jewish Congress, and the Council of Europe, who recently joined forces to remind humanity that “conspiracy theories cause real harm to people, to their health, and also to their physical safety.”

Europe has taken the legal lead in equating conspiracy theory to terrorism, banning author David Icke from the entire Schengen Area last year because his scheduled speech at a peace rally in the Netherlands posed a potential “threat to public order.” Rather than stand up to the police state, the media eagerly flew to its side, quoting “experts” who sagely opined that the “danger” posed by Icke’s “conspiracy ideology” was both clear and present and could inflict “lasting harm” upon the country.

This is in keeping with the refrain the WHO has kept up all alongside Covid-19 – that a deadly “infodemic” is spreading through sharing unapproved information about the virus, and that good citizens refrain from posting conspiracy theories online because words are equivalent to violence. This is a central part of children’s “media literacy” classes, aimed at building the perfect content filter directly into the child – because Big Brother can’t be everywhere. The idea is to graduate a generation for whom privacy is alien, dissent is criminal, obedience is a competitive sport, and turning in your parents for wrongthink is second-nature, all justified by the vague nonspecific crisis that has been looming in the background since they were born.

The censorship of New Dawn, the university witch-hunts against Dr. Coles and both Millers, the absurd white supremacy conspiracy bill, are all symptoms of the same totalitarian virus gradually sucking the will to resist out of humanity. Just as viruses need host cells to multiply, so does this one require an army of facilitators – “fake news” bounty hunters, “disinformation experts,” and the like – to smooth out humanity’s rough edges into blissful obedience. A pandemic – even an artificially-inflated synthetic one like Covid-19 – has to end, but an infodemic is forever, and this one has proven 100% fatal to human rights.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. Her work has appeared on RT, Global Research, Ghion Journal, Progressive Radio Network, and Veterans Today. Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski or follow her on Twitter at @velocirapture23.

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

T.J Coles articles on Global Research

Featured image is from TruePublica / All other images in this article are from the author 

Source

Eagle’s Eye Report: Classified Documents & Censorship



Eagle’s Eye Report: Classified Documents & Censorship (Archived)

Host: Roger Landry (TLB) – Co-Host & Producer: Stephen Roberts

Brought to you by: TLBTalk.com – Where Freedom Roars

Live Broadcast platform: ShakeAndWake Radio Network

Also on PSN RadioEPGN Radio Online and SoFloRadio live.

Listen to Show below intro article

See appropriate links below Show

••••

Intro by: Roger Landry (TLB)

Welcome again to Episode #36 of the Eagle’s Eye Report. This episode is Hosted by myself with Co-Host and Producer Stephen Roberts. The title of today’s show is … Classified Documents & Censorship … The intent of this weekly show is to be a mechanism for communicating the truth and facts in a country increasingly forbidding of these very concepts.

No, as I say weekly, this not a pleasant way to introduce a show … but today reality is blatant and not very pleasant in many aspects. Thus the reason, and intent behind the Eagle’s Eye Report.

Our mission is to keep you armed with the vital truth, as well as to present you with a social media platform where you can discuss these vital issues without fear of undue censorship or exclusion, that being the sponsor of this show … TLBTalk.com.

Now it’s down to business …

••••

Classified Documents & Censorship

Show Talking Points

Biden’s mishandling of highly classified documents – Update:

There should NEVER be politics involved with security. But what we are seeing today is the security of America being used as a political tool for ultimate control. As someone who held a high clearance this is especially troubling to me! So lets dive into this and bring the tyranny into daylight !!!

The Department of Justice opted against having FBI agents oversee a search by Joe-Bob’s lawyers for classified documents at his private homes … REALLY … ??? That is a freaking crime scene and should have been locked down immediately !!!

News of the Biden Team and DOJ discussions comes as Biden’s aids have discovered multiple troves (4 to date) of classified materials in various locations occupied by Joe-Bob, including both his Delaware home and his former office at the Penn Biden Center (Biden Think Tank … LMAO) in Washington, which was heavily funded by the Communist Chinese (one even shared the office space with the Biden’s) to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

••••

Rampant and widespread government censorship – Update:

Between the documentation obtained through a recent lawsuit against the White House and the Twitter files released by Elon Musk, it’s become quite clear that every facet of the U.S. government, including its intelligence agencies, are involved in illegal and unconstitutional censorship.

We now have in your face proof that the FBI has been acting as the key instigator and implementer of the government’s illegal censorship of Americans. The FBI has also actively interfered in multiple elections — all while inventing the narrative that foreign nations were interfering.

Twitter has worked hand in hand with the U.S. Department of Defense to aid U.S. intelligence agencies in their efforts to influence foreign governments using fake news, computerized deepfake videos and bots.

The Twitter files also reveal members of Congress (Shifty Schiff) had a direct line to Pre-Musk Twitter and have had accounts suspended on their behalf and content removed at their whim over the past several years … on the down-low.

Discovery documents from a lawsuit against the White House filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana show at least 67 federal employees across more than a dozen agencies are also engaged in illegal censorship activities. This includes aides to President Biden, who pressured social media companies to change their policies to fit White House demands for censorship

What the hell happened to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the LAW? What we are seeing today is a massive Administrative Deep State push for the complete totalitarian control over We The People, and this is happening right before our eyes …

Who the hell is in Jail ??? Will ANYONE ever go to jail … what about if this was being perpetrated by Conservatives instead of Progressives ???

••••

Question: What do We The People have to look forward to in America when the duly elected Representatives of We The People, and the Fourth Estate (media) have teamed up to put a strangle hold on our rights and ensure our inability to have any say in our governance, our elections and our futures … Can you say TREASON ??? !!!

Again it’s time to ask and answer some vital questions …

••••

Eagle’s Eye Report: Classified Documents & Censorship

(Click on image below to listen to show)

••••

Show Related Articles:

A Classified Document Found In A Garage Is No Accident … Its A Crime!

Hunter Lived In Classified Doc House While Making Millions Through Chinese Intel Ties

DOJ declined to monitor Biden Documents Search

Biden Put Obama In A Delightfully Serious Bind

Every Facet Of Government Is In The Censorship Business

Adam Schiff & The Underbelly Of American Censorship

••••

More Episodes of Eagle’s Eye Report (click on image below)

••••

About the Articles Author Roger Landry (TLB) spent about three decades of his adult life either in, or working for the military, with about two decades working directly for the Military Industrial Complex facilitating DOD contracts. His awakening to Political, Economic, and Health realities was about fifteen short years ago. Since that time he has founded The Liberty Beacon Project (TLB) consisting of a half dozen proprietary global websites, media projects and partner websites across the planet. He contributes regularly to multiple forums both in and outside of TLB Project. Most of his work can be found on the TLB Flagship website TheLibertyBeacon.com

Image Credit: In-Article photo of Joe Biden – Gage Skidmore, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0 (cropped).

••••

Checkout TLBTalk.com:

Click Here to Visit the TLBTalk.com Site

••••

Welcome to the TLB Project Neighborhood

TLBTalkRepublic Broadcasting NetworkThe Liberty BeaconThe Butcher Shop

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

Left-Wing Propagandist Brian Stelter Hosts ‘Disinformation’ Panel At World Economic Forum

Left-Wing Propagandist Brian Stelter Hosts ‘Disinformation’ Panel At World Economic Forum

Disinformation purveyor and former CNN anchor Brian Stelter recently hosted a panel titled “The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation” at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos on Tuesday. Instead of discussing genuine truth-seeking, the panel was far more preoccupied with lamenting about Trump, demonizing the political right, and rebranding censorship as “public safety.” 

While many of the panelists claimed they wanted to protect free speech and expression, their policy prescriptions for combating disinformation showed us very clearly that this wasn’t the case. According to panelist and New York Times journalist Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, “the disinformation question maps basically to every other challenge that we’re grappling with as a society, and certainly the most existential among them.”

What is Sulzberger’s answer to the “existential” disinformation “challenge”? Censorship.

“At some point, given the central role of the platforms in disseminating bad information, I think they’re going to have to do an unpopular and brave thing, which is to differentiate and elevate trustworthy sources of information consistently,” said Sulzberger. “Until they do, we have to assume that those environments are poisoned.”

What the panelists deem disinformation and who they deem a promoter of disinformation is key to understanding what rhetoric and people the Davos crowd want silenced. Early on in the discussion, panelist and U.S. Representative Seth Moulton proclaimed that “Donald Trump came to power and proved that lying works.” Moulton later added that while disinformation does exist on the left, “there’s some good evidence, at least in U.S. politics, that [the spread of disinformation] is more of a problem on the right.” 

There’s a lot of irony in claiming that the left is more truthful than the right, given that the left profusely denies some of the universe’s most fundamental truths, particularly that men cannot be women and women cannot be men. 

The panel also focused heavily on “established” news brands regaining trust and power among the people. However, instead of looking inward and discussing what caused the American people to distrust the media, such as their habitual lies on the Covid vaccine’s efficacy, the Russia collusion Hoax, and the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, they blamed Trump.

Sulzberger claimed distrust in the corporate media is thanks to the phrases “fake news” and “enemies of the people,” two terms popularized by Donald Trump to criticize the corporate media. Sulzberger even likened the phrase’s modern use to Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. 

“To be clear,” said Sulzberger, “terms like ‘fake news,’ and I mean, ‘enemies of the people,’ have been popularized cyclically in society and in some of the most, you know, repressive and dangerous moments, you know, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, right? So, I think anytime we’re hearing language like that applied to, you know, a free press, or more broadly free expression, I think, I think we should be really worried.”

Ultimately, any assurances from the panelists that they “believe very strongly in free speech,” as Moulton said, turned out to be entirely false, especially when the term “public safety” was evoked. 

“When I have a constituency that I’m trying to keep healthy, and I can’t get them to take a Covid vaccine because of misinformation that’s propagated on the internet, that’s where this becomes a much tougher, more difficult, bigger concern,” said Moulton.

Ironically, the Covid vaccine is a perfect example of why people like Moulton and his friends in big tech and the corporate press should not become the arbiters of truth. We now know that the Covid vaccine does not prevent transmission and that the CDC and FDA are even investigating it for negative side effects. Notably, the failure of the vaccine and the existence of its many side effects were not long ago deemed conspiracy theories and discussion of them was censored on social media.

In a similar vein, panelist and Internews CEO Jeanne Bourgault suggested that disinformation targeted at women should be taken down by social media platforms. “The platforms, when it comes to content moderation, do have a responsibility for trying to keep people safer, and they can do more,” said Bourgault, who argued that “gender disinformation,” meaning disinformation targeted at women, “can be very unsafe for a lot of people.” 

The disinformation craze is not about truth; it’s about influence — who has influence over public discourse and, ultimately, who has influence over the public. Powerful CEOs and political leaders at the WEF have a vested interest in the disinformation hysteria because seizing digital control means regaining the gatekeeping powers they lost to independent journalists and the democratizing free web.

Passing “public safety” disinformation laws and putting censorship pressure on social media companies requires people to believe there is a real disinformation threat. Enter Stelter and the other partisan panelists, who are integral to convincing people that free speech is dangerous. 

This is why it isn’t the first time Stelter has found himself in the spotlight of a “disinformation” discussion. Last April, Stelter was on a panel at the University of Chicago’s “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy” Conference, but at that conference, he received a challenge.

In a now-viral moment, College freshman Christopher Phillips asked Stelter about his former network’s journalistic ethics and history of spreading disinformation, such as the Russian collusion hoax, the Jussie Smollet hoax, and the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up. Stelter dismissed Phillip’s question as “a popular right-wing narrative.” The damage was done, though, and Stelter began trending on Twitter, with users mocking him for hypocritically discussing disinformation when he himself is a spreader of it.

As it turns out, pointing out the obvious — the truth — is the best way to combat the ongoing war on free speech that’s being advertised to us as a war on “disinformation.” If we walk away from this latest disinformation panel recalling, as Phillips did in April, how these “disinformation” fighters are actually disinformation purveyors, their sinister censorship proposals and fear tactics crumble.


Evita Duffy is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)