Pfizer CEO, Head Of NATO & Director Of The CIA Attended The 68th Bilderberg Meeting

The 68th Bilderberg Meeting took place between June 2nd and June 5th 2022 in Washington, D.C., USA. Around 120 participants from 21 countries attended.

pfizer ceo, head of nato & director of the cia attended the 68th bilderberg meeting

As ever, a diverse group of political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia, labour and the media were invited.

The Key Topics For Discussion This Year Were:

1. Geopolitical Realignments
2. NATO Challenges
3. China
4. Indo-Pacific Realignment
5. Sino-US Tech Competition
6. Russia
7. Continuity of Government and the Economy
8. Disruption of the Global Financial System
9. Disinformation
10. Energy Security and Sustainability
11. Post Pandemic Health
12. Fragmentation of Democratic Societies
13. Trade and Deglobalisation
14. Ukraine

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg Meeting is an annual secretive meeting that we are told is designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America.

Every year, between 120-140 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, labour, academia and the media are invited to take part in the secretive meeting.

The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor any other participant may be revealed.

Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions.

Bilderberg Attendees 2022

Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Former Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer Bilderberg Meetings

Adeyemo, Adewale (USA), Deputy Secretary, Department of  The Treasury

Albares, José Manuel (ESP), Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation

Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore Inc.

Altman, Sam (USA), CEO, OpenAI

Applebaum, Anne (USA), Staff Writer, The Atlantic

Arnaut, José Luís (PRT), Managing Partner, CMS Rui Pena & Arnaut

Auken, Ida (DNK), Member of Parliament, The Social Democrat Party

Azoulay, Audrey (INT), Director-General, UNESCO

Baker, James H. (USA), Director, Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense

Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), Chairwoman and CEO, Temaris & Associés SAS

Barroso, José Manuel (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International LLC

Baudson, Valérie (FRA), CEO, Amundi

Beurden, Ben van (NLD), CEO, Shell plc

Bourla, Albert (USA), Chairman and CEO, Pfizer Inc.

Buberl, Thomas (FRA), CEO, AXA SA

Burns, William J. (USA), Director, CIA

Byrne, Thomas (IRL), Minister of State for European Affairs

Campbell, Kurt (USA), White House Coordinator for Indo-Pacific, NSC

Carney, Mark J. (CAN), Vice Chair, Brookfield Asset Management

Casado, Pablo (ESP), Former President, Partido Popular

Chhabra, Tarun (USA), Senior Director for Technology and National Security, National Security Council

Donohoe, Paschal (IRL), Minister for Finance; President, Eurogroup

Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE

Dudley, William C. (USA), Senior Research Scholar, Princeton University

Easterly, Jen (USA), Director, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

Economy, Elizabeth (USA), Senior Advisor for China, Department of Commerce

Émié, Bernard (FRA), Director General, Ministry of the Armed Forces

Emond, Charles (CAN), CEO, CDPQ

Erdogan, Emre (TUR), Professor Political Science, Istanbul Bilgi University

Eriksen, Øyvind (NOR), President and CEO, Aker ASA

Ermotti, Sergio (CHE), Chairman, Swiss Re

Fanusie, Yaya (USA), Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security

Feltri, Stefano (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, Domani

Fleming, Jeremy (GBR), Director, British Government Communications Headquarters

Freeland, Chrystia (CAN), Deputy Prime Minister

Furtado, Isabel (PRT), CEO, TMG Automotive

Gove, Michael (GBR), Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Cabinet Office

Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Co-Chair Bilderberg Meetings; Professor of Economics, Leiden University

Hallengren, Lena (SWE), Minister for Health and Social Affairs

Hamers, Ralph (NLD), CEO, UBS Group AG

Hassabis, Demis (GBR), CEO and Founder, DeepMind

Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation

Henry, Mary Kay (USA), International President, Service Employees International Union

Hobson, Mellody (USA), Co-CEO and President, Ariel Investments LLC

Hodges, Ben (USA), Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies, Center for European Policy Analysis

Hoekstra, Wopke (NLD), Minister of Foreign Affairs

Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, Inflection AI; Partner, Greylock

Huët, Jean Marc (NLD), Chairman, Heineken NV

Joshi, Shashank (GBR), Defence Editor, The Economist

Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies Inc.

Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.

Koç, Ömer (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding AS

Kofman, Michael (USA), Director, Russia Studies Program, Center for Naval Analysis

Kostrzewa, Wojciech (POL), President, Polish Business Roundtable

Krasnik, Martin (DNK), Editor-in-Chief, Weekendavisen

Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman, KKR & Co. Inc.  

Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Co-Chair Bilderberg Meetings; Chair, The Museum of Modern Art

Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group SA

Kukies, Jörg (DEU), State Secretary, Chancellery

Lammy, David (GBR), Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, House of Commons

LeCun, Yann (USA), Vice-President and Chief AI Scientist, Facebook, Inc.

Leu, Livia (CHE), State Secretary, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, Umicore and Mediahuis; Chairman DSM N.V.

Liikanen, Erkki (FIN), Chairman, IFRS  Foundation Trustees

Little, Mark (CAN), President and CEO, Suncor Energy Inc.

Looney, Bernard (GBR), CEO, BP plc

Lundstedt, Martin (SWE), CEO and President, Volvo Group

Lütke, Tobias (CAN), CEO, Shopify

Marin, Sanna (FIN), Prime Minister

Markarowa, Oksana (UKR), Ambassador of Ukraine to the US

Meinl-Reisinger, Beate (AUT), Party Leader, NEOS

Michel, Charles (INT), President, European Council

Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist

Mullen, Michael (USA), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates LLC

Netherlands, H.M. the King of the (NLD)

Niemi, Kaius (FIN), Senior Editor-in-Chief, Helsingin Sanomat Newspaper

Núñez, Carlos (ESP), Executive Chairman, PRISA Media

O’Leary, Michael (IRL), Group CEO, Ryanair Group

Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), Chairman, TITAN Cement Group

Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute

Pierrakakis, Kyriakos (GRC), Minister of Digital Governance

Pinho, Ana (PRT), President and CEO, Serralves Foundation

Pouyanné, Patrick (FRA), Chairman and CEO, TotalEnergies SE

Rachman, Gideon (GBR), Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times

Raimondo, Gina M. (USA), Secretary of Commerce

Reksten Skaugen, Grace (NOR), Board Member, Investor AB

Rende, Mithat (TUR), Member of the Board, TSKB

Reynders, Didier (INT), European Commissioner for Justice

Rutte, Mark (NLD), Prime Minister

Salvi, Diogo (PRT), Co-Founder and CEO, TIMWE

Sawers, John (GBR), Executive Chairman, Newbridge Advisory Ltd.

Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

Schinas, Margaritis (INT), Vice President, European Commission

Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Former CEO and Chairman, Google LLC

Scott, Kevin (USA), CTO, Microsoft Corporation

Sebastião, Nuno (PRT), CEO, Feedzai

Sedwill, Mark (GBR), Chairman, Atlantic Futures Forum

Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), MEP, European Parliament

Sinema, Kyrsten (USA), Senator

Starace, Francesco (ITA), CEO, Enel S.p.A.

Stelzenmüller, Constanze (DEU), Fritz Stern Chair, The Brookings Institution

Stoltenberg, Jens (INT), Secretary General, NATO

Straeten, Tinne Van der (BEL), Minister for Energy

Suleyman, Mustafa (GBR), CEO, Inflection AI

Sullivan, Jake (USA), Director, National Security Council

Tellis, Ashley J. (USA), Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs, Carnegie Endowment

Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital LLC

Treichl, Andreas (AUT), President, Chairman ERSTE Foundation

Tugendhat, Tom (GBR), MP; Chair Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons

Veremis, Markos (GRC), Co-Founder and Chairman, Upstream

Vitrenko, Yuriy (UKR), CEO, Naftogaz

Wallander, Celeste (USA), Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs

Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chair, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB

Walmsley, Emma (GBR), CEO, GlaxoSmithKline plc

Wennink, Peter (NLD), President and CEO, ASML Holding NV

Yetkin, Murat (TUR), Journalist/Writer, YetkinReport

Yurdakul, Afsin (TUR), Journalist, Habertürk News Network

What fate do you think they decided on for the masses this year? Let us know in the comments…

Source: Expose-News.com

Leftists Hate Free Speech Because They Fear Dissent, Not ‘Disinformation’

I think one of the most bizarre social developments of the past 10 years in the US has been the slow but steady shift of the political left as supposed defenders of free speech to enemies of free speech. The level of mental gymnastics on display by leftists to justify their attacks on freedom and the 1st Amendment is bewildering.

leftists hate free speech because they fear dissent, not 'disinformation'

So much so that I begin to question if liberals and leftists ever actually had any respect for 1st Amendment rights to begin with? Or, maybe the only freedom they cared about all along was the freedom to watch pornography…

One can see the steady progression of this war on speech and ideas, and the end game is predictable:

Is anyone really that surprised that the Biden Administration is implementing a Ministry of Truth in the form of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board?

Can we just accept the reality at this point that leftists are evil and their efforts feed into an agenda of authoritarianism? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Before I get into this issue, I think it’s important to point out that it’s becoming tiresome to hear arguments these days suggesting that meeting leftists “somewhere in the middle” is the best and most desirable option. I see this attitude all over the place and I think it comes from a certain naivety about the situation we are facing as a country.

Moderates and “normies” along with people like Bill Maher and Russell Brand are FINALLY starting to realize how bag-lady-crazy leftists are and the pendulum is swinging back slightly. But, it was conservatives that were calling out the social justice cult and their highway to hell for years.

While everyone else was blissfully ignorant, we were fighting the battles that stalled the leftist advance. This is not to say I’m not happy to have moderates and reformed liberals on board, it’s a great thing. However, the time for diplomacy and meeting leftists halfway is long dead.

There is no such thing as a “center” in our society anymore, either you lean conservative and you support freedom, or you lean left and support authoritarianism. There is no magical and Utopian in-between that we need to achieve to make things right. We are not required to tolerate leftist authoritarianism because of “democracy.”

Sometimes certain ideologies and certain groups are mutually exclusive to freedom; meaning, they cannot coexist within a society that values liberty.

We need to be clear about where the lines are drawn, because sitting on the fence is not an option. Walk in middle of road? Get squished like grape.

To understand how leftists got to the point of enthusiastic hatred of free speech rights there are some psychological and philosophical factors that need to be addressed. These include specific ideals that leftists value that are disjointed or simply irrational:

Hate Speech Is Real And Must Be Censored?

First, as I have argued for many years, there is no such thing as “hate speech.” There is speech that some people don’t like and speech they are offended by. That is all.

Constitutionally, there is no hate speech. People are allowed to say any offensive thing they wish and believe however they wish as long as they are not slandering a person’s reputation with lies or threatening them with direct bodily harm. If you are offended by criticism, that is your problem.

Leftists believe the opposite. Instead of growing a thicker skin they think that “hate speech” should be illegal and that they should be the people that determine what hate speech is.

This is a kind of magical door to power, because if you can declare yourself the arbiter of hate speech you give yourself the authority to control ALL speech. That is to say, as the thought police all you have to do is label everything you don’t like as hate speech, no matter how factual, and you now dictate the course of society.

No one is capable of this kind of objectivity or benevolence. No person alive has the ability to determine what speech is acceptable without bias.

Like the One Ring in the Lord of The Rings, there is no individual or group capable of wielding such power without being corrupted by it. Either there is no hate speech, or everything becomes hate speech.

Free Speech Is Negated By Property Rights?

This is in direct reference to social media websites and it’s an oversimplification of the issue of free speech and large social media platforms. Here is the conundrum or “false paradigm” if you will:

Leftists argue for private property rights, but only when it comes to vast corporate big tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. They like private property rights for companies that they think are on their side politically; they hate private property rights for everyone else. Just look at their response to Elon Musk’s recent Twitter buyout; the leftists are demanding that Musk be stopped at all costs, and they demand that the SEC and FCC step in to disrupt the sale because they claim Musk’s purchase is a “threat to democracy.”

The media itself is clamoring to disrupt Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Whether or not you trust him, Musk’s acquisition of the platform has at least exposed the totalitarian attitudes of mainstream journalists for everyone to see. They are now even admitting on air that THEY control public discussion; that it is “their job,” and they see Musk as a threat to that monopoly.

Why are Elon Musk’s private property rights less important or protected than the original shareholders of Twitter (Vangaurd, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and a Saudi Prince)? Because Musk does not claim to represent leftist designs and interests?

Leftists have no principles, they only care about manufacturing consent. Their method of winning requires that they never restrict themselves within the boundaries of values or morals. Again, this is the epitome of pure evil.

Beyond that irony, though, is the deeper issue of government intervention vs business rights. Many people seem to think that government power is supposed to balance out corporate power when the truth is that governments and corporations work hand in hand; they are often one in the same entity.

Twitter and other Big Tech platforms receive billions upon billions of dollars in government stimulus and tax incentives every year. Corporations as a concept are essentially a socialist creation. They enjoy limited liability and corporate personhood along with other special protections under government charter.

With all these protections, incentives, bailouts and stimulus measures it is almost impossible for small and new businesses to compete with them. They represent a monopoly through cartel; they control the marketplace by colluding with each other and colluding with the government.

A perfect example of this would be the coordination between multiple Big Tech companies to bring down Parler, a conservative leaning competitor to Twitter.

This required some of the biggest companies in the world working in unison along with the blessing of government officials to disrupt the ability of a new company to offer an alternative, and all because Parler was getting too big.

In the case of a private person’s home or their small business or small website, it’s true that there are no free speech rights.

They can kick you out and they don’t have to give a reason. But when it comes to massive conglomerates that receive billions in OUR tax dollars in order to stay alive, no, they do not deserve private property rights.

They have now made themselves into a public utility, and that means they are subject to constitutional limitations just as public schools and universities are.

This is a concept that leftists just don’t grasp. They view corporate power as sacrosanct…as long as it serves their interests.

Consider global corporations like Disney and their open intention to undermine the passage of Florida’s anti-grooming bill; this represents Disney’s vocal support for the sexualization and indoctrination of children in Florida schools.

Leftists cheered the announcement and claimed that without Disney, Florida’s economy would be wrecked. Instead, the state turned the tables and took away incentives they had been giving to Disney for decades.

Leftists responded by accusing Governor DeSantis of being a “fascist” and attacking free speech.

But let’s break this down: Leftists happily supported Disney, a massive conglomerate, and their efforts to undermine the will of the voters in Florida.

The state government stops them from undermining the voters by taking away the money and special incentives that belong to the voters. In turn, leftists claim this is a violation of Disney’s rights?

The disparity between leftist arguments on Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter vs. Disney’s attempted sabotage of Florida law could not be more confused.

When it comes to Twitter they love the idea of censorship and react with panic when the mere prospect of free speech (within the confines of US law) is presented.

When it comes to Disney, they say they love the idea of free speech, and anyone that wants to limit the corporation’s influence within Florida, no matter how criminal, is accused of fascism.

The difference is obvious – Musk appears to be an uncontrolled element, while Disney is an “ally.” Free speech and property rights are only allowed for one side of the cultural divide. Leftists attacking freedom is free speech; defending ourselves against those attacks is a threat to democracy. It’s absurd.

Disinformation Is A Threat And Censorship Is The Solution?

The holy grail of censorship is not website filters and algorithms, because as we have seen with Twitter, those platforms could be built or purchased by someone that does not share in the leftist agenda.

Instead, government intervention and the ability to define what is proper and improper discourse is the ultimate goal. The end game of authoritarians is always to write mass censorship into law, as if it is justified once it is codified.

Corporate elites and political puppets like Biden pontificating about the threat of “disinformation” is hilarious for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is the power brokers and the media that have been the main purveyors of disinformation for a long time. Suddenly today they care about the spread of lies?

I think it is obvious that such people are far more worried about the spread of facts, evidence and truth. They cannot debate on fair ground because they will lose, so, the only other option is to silence us.

The institution of the Disinformation Governance Board is a clear indication that the establishment and the useful idiots on the political left are becoming DESPERATE.

Their grip on the public mind is slipping, and we saw this during their recent attempts to enforce medical tyranny across the country in the name of covid.

Luckily, conservatives in at least 20 red states fought against the implementation of covid lockdowns, mandates and jjab passports which would have annihilated our constitutional rights forever.

For years I heard the argument that when the jackboots arrived conservatives would do nothing, and now we know this is nonsense.

Some of the few free places in the world during two years of pandemic fear mongering were red states in America, which coincidentally also have the highest concentration of conservatives.

If you want to know what our country would look like had conservatives not stopped the tide of tyranny, just take a gander at China today.

They have some of the strictest covid mandates on the planet and yet they are once again locking down millions of citizens due to “high infection rates.” Not only that, but they are starving their own people in the process.

It’s madness, and it’s exactly what leftists were arguing in favor of just a few months ago. The US is mostly open today, just as red states like mine have been free for almost the entirety of the pandemic, and what has changed? Half the country is still unvaccinated – Is there mass death in the streets? Nope.

Nothing has changed in terms of covid. The mandates made no difference whatsoever, other than to disrupt the economy and reduce people’s freedoms.

Not long ago, pointing out this fact was considered “disinformation” that needed to be silenced in order to “save lives.” The Hunter Biden laptop story was called disinformation.

The Wuhan Lab story was called disinformation. Fauci’s gain of function research on covid at the Wuhan lab was called disinformation. The fact that vaccinated people still contract and die from covid was called disinformation.

In other words, what the government and corporate oligarchs call “disinformation” today is eventually called reality tomorrow.

I would be happy to enter into a fair debate with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on any of the above issues and her views of what constitutes “disinformation,” but she would never do such a thing because she knows she would be crushed like a bug.

It is not the government’s job to protect the public from information, whether real or fake. It is not their job to filter or censor data or ideas. They are not qualified to do this. No one is.

Leftists operate from a collectivist mentality and this makes them believe that society is a singular entity that needs to be managed and manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.

They have no concept of individual responsibility and discernment, but that is a side note to the real problem. They support information control because facts and ideas outside of their narrative could possibly damage that narrative. And, if the narrative is damaged they lose their feeling of power, which is all they really care about.

If your narrative is so fragile that it does not hold up to scrutiny or alternative viewpoints then it must not be worth much of a damn. If you have to force people or manipulate people into believing the way you do, then your ideology must be fundamentally flawed.

The truth speaks volumes for itself and eventually wins without force. Only lies need to be forced into the collective consciousness. Only lies require tyranny.

Eventually reality wins over propaganda, unless total censorship and totalitarianism can be achieved. Nothing has changed in the 200+ years since the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Free speech is still integral to a functioning society. Without it, society crumbles. They will claim that today things are different and that society needs to be “protected from itself.” This is what tyrants always say when trying to steal power.

Most people reading this know by now that this is a war. It’s not a political debate that requires give-and-take, but a full-bore winner-take-all conflict. A DHS faction which is mandated to monitor our speech and propagandize the public is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

Leftist and globalist monopoly of social media communications platforms is unacceptable and must be eliminated. The imposition of leftist and globalist ideology into the media narrative while censoring any contrary information is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

This is about saving the remaining embers of American culture. If we do not take an aggressive stand now, the next generation may never know liberty. Everything we hold dear is at stake.

By Brandon Smith, Alt-Market.us

‘Ministry Of Truth’ Trends On Twitter After Government Unveils New ‘Disinformation Governance Board’

On Wednesday news broke that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — a department that didn’t exist 20 years ago but today spends $52 billion annually — had created a new “Disinformation Governance Board.”

'ministry of truth' trends on twitter after government unveils new 'disinformation governance board'.jpg

The news comes just days after Twitter accepted Tesla-Owner Elon Musk’s offer to buy Twitter for $44 billion, a move that critics of the deal claimed could unleash disinformation. (Musk has been vocal in his support for free speech.)

DHS declined to be interviewed by the Associated Press, but issued a statement after news broke of the development.

“The spread of disinformation can affect border security, Americans’ safety during disasters, and public trust in our democratic institutions,” DHS said.

A Ministry Of Truth?

Perhaps naturally, the revelation that the government had created a new board to fight “disinformation” prompted a slew of Nineteen Eighty-Four comparisons, especially since it came so soon after Musk’s purchase of Twitter.

“Elon Musk buys Twitter to save free speech and days later President Biden announces a Ministry of Truth,” one observer quipped. “It’s like we’re living through an Ayn Rand/George Orwell novel mash-up.”

For those unfamiliar with George Orwell’s masterpiece, the Ministry of Truth is the propaganda and censorship department of Oceania, the fictional setting for Orwell’s dystopia.

Known as Minitrue in Newspeak, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer. Like all the departments in 1984, the name reflects the opposite of what the government actually does.

The book’s protagonist, Winston Smith, learns this in the second half of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Even the names of the four Ministries by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.

These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely.

Smith, who works at the Ministry of Truth, realizes the Ministry of Truth is not the least bit interested in truth. Its use of propaganda is overt, as is its use of banal slogans designed to confuse and humiliate the people of Oceania.

On the exterior of the Ministry of Truth building are three party slogans:

WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” and “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

Inside the structure, problematic documents are incinerated, dropped down a Memory Hole where they are conveniently forgotten.

1984: ‘Based Chiefly On Communism’

One might be tempted to laugh off comparisons between a “Disinformation Governance Board” and the propaganda department in Orwell’s classic work. After all, we’re talking about a novel.

This would be mistaken, however.

For starters, Nineteen Eighty-Four is indeed a fictional work. But it was inspired by the authoritarian regimes and ideologies Orwell witnessed firsthand. A one-time socialist who observed the fighting in the Spanish Civil War — a conflict between fascists and communists — Orwell became a budding libertarian who became disillusioned with collectivism.

In fact, Orwell makes it clear that Nineteen Eighty-Four was inspired by communism.

“[Nineteen Eighty-Four] was based chiefly on communism, because that is the dominant form of totalitarianism,” he told Sidney Sheldon, who purchased the stage rights to the book; “but I was trying chiefly to imagine what communism would be like if it were firmly rooted in the English speaking countries, and was no longer a mere extension of the Russian Foreign Office.”

Stalin’s regime was not the only totalitarian regime to utilize propaganda and censorship, of course. Joseph Goebbels, the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party, is perhaps the single most infamous wielder of propaganda in human history. And of course the Nazis were infamous for their book burning.

The Chinese Communist Party uses propaganda and censorship to such great effect today that scholars say it’s difficult to even know what’s actually happened in the country over the last century.

“At a time when censorship is a part of everyday experience of the Chinese people, even few historians actually know all the history of the party,” historian Sun Peidong recently told The Guardian. “It’s hard to get hold of party history materials as a history researcher nowadays. It’s even harder to know what the past 100 years has really been about.”

This is why Americans should be concerned that the US government — nearly two and a half centuries after it was founded — is suddenly in the business of rooting out “disinformation.”

Humans will always disagree over what is true. Descartes’ first principle — “cogito, ergo sum” posited that the only thing we can know with total certainty is “I think, therefore I am.”

It doesn’t take a philosopher to see that a lot of stuff one finds online is drek, so it shouldn’t surprise us that “misinformation” — in various forms and to various degrees — is rampant online.

But history shows that no one wields misinformation and propaganda with greater effectiveness — or at greatest cost — than government.

Orwell understood this. Americans would do well to heed his warning.

Source: FEE.org

AMA Plots To Ban Ivermectin So That More People Die From COVID

The American Medical Association (AMA) wants people to die from the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

The reason we can safely say this is that the trade group is working overtime to restrict Americans’ access to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin, two safe, effective and inexpensive early treatment remedies for the Chinese Virus.ama plots to ban ivermectin so that more people die from covid

HJBC/Shutterstock

Instead of recognizing that each individual has the God-given right to choose what goes into his body, the AMA is taking a position of medical fascism that does not even recognize the right of doctors to prescribe whatever medications they see fit for their patients.

In 1996, ivermectin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in humans. Today, ivermectin is off-patent and available generically for treating a variety of pathologies.

Because using ivermectin breaks the plandemic script, however – everyone is supposed to just mask up and get “vaccinated,” they tell us – the AMA is trying to make it impossible to get (except for the black market, perhaps).

“The American Medical Association (which represents only 12% of practicing physicians and receives more money from the federal government than from its waning membership dues) and two national pharmacy associations (which receive corporate support from COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ manufacturers, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson) have decided ivermectin should not be used to treat this virus despite widespread successful treatment with this drug (discovered in the late 1970s and used in humans since 1988),” write Robert Marshall and Dr. Bernard, Pegis, M.D., for LifeSiteNews.

“Ivermectin is currently available over the counter in many countries. If American drugstores implement this dangerous policy, many lives will be lost.”

Explosive! India State of 241 MILLION People Declared COVID-Free After Government Promotes Ivermectin.

Hypocritical AMA Supported Off-Label Prescription Of Drugs As Recently As 2020

In a September 1 press release, the AMA, along with the American Pharmacists Association (APHA) and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), explained that they “strongly oppose the ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.”

“We are alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months,” that announcement further read.

Even though there are almost no risks associated with taking ivermectin as normally prescribed, the AMA, the APHA and the ASHP are freaking out about the fact that some doctors are administering it to their sick patients.

Off-label prescription of pharmaceuticals has been common practice for many decades. Now that covid is here and being highly politicized by the left, however, it is suddenly a mortal sin in the eyes of the medical establishment to even just try using ivermectin for treating Chinese Germs.

Just prior to when the Fauci Flu made its appearance, the AMA actually issued an official policy guideline confirming that it offers “strong support” for the off-label prescription of pharmaceuticals whenever a doctor deems that it may be helpful.

“Our AMA confirms its strong support for the autonomous clinical decision-making authority of a physician and that a physician may lawfully use an FDA approved drug product or medical device for an off-label indication when such use is based upon sound scientific evidence or sound medical opinion,” the organization confirmed at the time.

India: COVID Cases Plummet After Government Promotes Use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.

Now that the Biden regime wants everyone to get “vaccinated,” though, the AMA is doing everything possible to restrict access to ivermectin, which quite frankly would have put an end to this fake “pandemic” a long, long time ago.

“Jesus was severely criticized for healing a blind man on the Sabbath (John 9:13-30),” LifeSiteNews reported.

“Today, practicing physicians who save lives using drug therapy are ostracized. Mainstream medicine appears to be rejecting efforts to combat COVID-19 with drugs in favor of experimental mRNA ‘vaccines.’”

Does the Virus Exist? The SARS-CoV-2 Has Not Been Isolated? “Biggest Fraud in Medical History”

Introduction

There is a sequence of outright lies and fabrications used to justify far-reaching policy decisions which in the course of the last 18 months are literally destroying people’s lives Worldwide. 

“Fake science” is used to justify confinement, social distancing, the face mask, the prohibition of social gatherings,  cultural and sports events, the closure of economic activity, all of which are upheld as a means to repealing the “killer virus”. 

Who is this “Killer Virus” which has been personified by both the media and our governments, held responsible for triggering economic and social chaos Worldwide? 

You might recall that at the height of the February 2020 financial collapse, “V the Virus” was held responsible for the largest stock market crash since 1929. 

Has the “Killer Virus” been Identified. Has SARS-CoV-2 been Isolated?

This article will review this contentious issue starting at the outset of the crisis in January 2020. Part of this analysis is based on research conducted in early 2020. 

The central question raised in this review is the following: is there reliable evidence provided by the WHO and national  health authorities that the alleged SARS-CoV-2  virus has been isolated/purified  from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”? 

While the alleged virus was initially defined as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in January 2020 that it did not have in its possession details regarding the isolation/purification and identity of  2019-nCoV.

And because details concerning isolation / purification were not available, the WHO decided to “customize” The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Test using the alleged “similar” 2003 SARS virus (subsequently renamed SARS-1) as “a point of reference” for detecting genetic fragments of the novel 2019-nCoV. 

What this decision entails is that novel 2019-CoV-2 is NOT a novel virus. It was categorized by the Chinese authorities and the WHO as “similar” to the 2003 SARS-CoV as well as to MERS. 

2003 SARS-CoV was subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1.

History: Isolation of the Virus 

Chinese Health Authorities

The Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that “a new type of virus”  had been identified  “similar to the one associated with SARS and MERS” (related report , not original Chinese government source).  The underlying method is described below:

We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing.

Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. (emphasis added)

The  following article entitled A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China(Nature, February 3, 2021) was among the first to report on the China’s novel coronavirus:…[We] collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and performed deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described 4,6,7,8. .In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. ….The genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, were determined and confirmed by reverse-transcription PCR (RT–PCR)10 and 5′/3′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), respectively. This virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV) (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’) and its whole genome sequence (29,903 nt) has been assigned GenBank accession number MN908947. .The viral genome organization of WHCV was determined by sequence alignment to two representative members of the genus Betacoronavirus: a coronavirus associated with humans (SARS-CoV Tor2, GenBank accession number AY274119) [2003] and a coronavirus associated with bats (bat SL-CoVZC45, GenBank accession number MG772933) . (Nature, February 3, 2020) .

It is unclear from the above quotations as well as from the documents consulted, whether the Chinese health authorities undertook an isolation / purification of  a patient’s specimen.

US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Following the Chinese announcement  on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.The CDC statement dated January 28th, 2020 (updated December 2020) is unequivocal:

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community.

….

Timeline:

  • On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.
  • On February 2, 2020, CDC generated enough SARS-CoV-2 grown in cell culture to distribute to medical and scientific researchers.
  • On February 4, 2020, CDC shipped SARS-CoV-2 to the BEI Resources Repository.
  • An article discussing the isolation and characterization of this virus specimen is available in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

One important way that CDC has supported global efforts to study and learn about SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory was by growing the virus in cell culture and ensuring that it was widely available. Researchers in the scientific and medical community can use virus obtained from this work in their studies.

SARS-CoV-2 strains supplied by CDC and other researchers can be requested, free, from the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research (BEI) Resources Repositoryexternal icon by established institutions that meet BEI requirements. These requirements include maintaining appropriate facilities and safety programs, as well as having the appropriate expertise. BEI supplies organisms and reagents to the broader community of microbiology and infectious disease researchers.  (Emphasis added).

See also related study which was posted on the CDC website.

The CDC Acknowledges that SARS-CoV-2 has not been  Isolated.

The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. (emphasis added, page 40)

Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:

On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.

***

See the analysis of CDC responses in the section below on Freedom of Information Requests.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Did Not Undertake The Isolation / Purification of a Specimen

From the documents quoted below, the Chinese authorities did not provide the WHO with a specimen of isolated /  purified  SARS-CoV-2.

And because details concerning isolation were not available, the WHO  decided to “customize” its Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR)  test using a so-called isolate of the “similar” 2003 SARS corona virus (subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1) as “a point of reference” (or proxy) for detecting genetic fragments of the 2019 SARS-CoV-2.

The WHO sought the advice of   Dr. Christian Drosten, and colleagues of the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital. The study entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” ) was subsequently submitted to the WHO. 

While Drosten et al’s study confirmed that “several viral genome sequences had been released”, in the case of 2019-nCoV, “virus isolates or samples from infected patients were not available … 

The recommendations to the WHO were as follows:

“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].

 We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”  (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).

What this bold statement suggests is that the isolation / purification of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “validation” would be enabled by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003-SARS-CoV.”

The recommendations of the Drosten study (supported and financed by the Gates Foundation) pertaining to the use of the RT-PCR test applied to 2019-nCoV were then firmly endorsed by the Director General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, E-Book, Chapter II).

Freedom of Information: No Record of SARS-CoV-2 Isolation-Purification

An important ongoing and detailed investigative project by Christine Massey, M.Sc. of Ontario, Canadais entitled:

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification  (work in progress since 2020)

by Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

A related text shows the list of institutions contacted

90 Health/Science Institutions Globally All Failed to Cite Even 1 Record of “SARS-COV-2” Purification, by Anyone, Anywhere, Ever 

By Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

The investigative report provides detailed documentation based on Freedom of Information (FOI) requests addressed to ninety Health /Science institutions in a large number of countries.

The responses to these requests confirm that there is no record of isolation / purification of SARS-CoV-2 “having been performed by anyone, anywhere, ever.”

“The 90 Health /Science institutions that have responded thus far have provided and/or cited, in total, zero such records:

Our requests [under “freedom of information”] have not been limited to records of isolation performed by the respective institution, or limited to records authored by the respective institution, rather they were open to any records describing “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”) isolation/purification performed by anyone, ever, anywhere on the planet.”

The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

The CDC was contacted by the author of this report in the form of four separate requests: November 2, 2020, March 1, 2021, March 3, 2021, which are reviewed below:

On November 2, 2020.

The CDC admitted they have no records of actual isolation/purification by anyone, anywhere, ever, by any method” :USA-CDC-Virus-Isolation-Response-Scrubbed.pdf

March 1, 2021:The CDC again made clear that they still have no records of “SARS-COV-2” isolation performed by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever… just not in so many words. Instead, the CDC absurdly implied that isolation/purification of “SARS-COV-2” would require the replication of a “virus” without host cells and thus is impossible.  (The request had nothing to do with replication.)

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CDC-March-1-2021-SARS-COV-2-Isolation-Response-Redacted.pdfMarch 3, 2021:

CDC again failed to provide/cite any records describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification by anyone anywhere ever… but would no longer simply say so (as they did on November 2nd); instead they gave song and dance citing the study by Harcourt et al. which is the same one posted on CDC’s website:

June 7, 2021:

CDC admitted they have no record of “SARS-COV-2” purification from a patient sample via maceration, filtration and use of an ultracentrifuge, by anyone, anywhere, ever:

Conclusive Results of the Investigation

What the author of this incisive and detailed report have confirmed is that:

Every institution has failed to provide even 1 record describing the isolation aka purification of any “COVID-19 virus” directly from a patient sample that was not first adulterated with other sources of genetic material. (Those other sources are typically monkey kidney aka “Vero” cells and fetal bovine serum).

Here are 5 compilation pdfs containing FOI responses from 79 institutions in 22 countries/jurisdictions, re the isolation/purification/existence of “SARS-COV-2”, as well as emails from authors of studies that claimed to have “isolated the virus” and an email from the Head of the Consultant Laboratory for Diagnostic Electron Microscopy of Infectious Pathogens at Germany’s Robert Koch Institut, last updated July 13, 2021

Screenshot of a selected responses are provided below : New Zealand, Canada, UK.

Consult the full archive of letters and responses. This work was undertaken over a period of more than 12 months.

Response Public Health England

It follows from the above detailed study that there is no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated/purified from a patient’s sample, as  evidenced by the responses “under freedom of information” (FOI) from some 90 health / science institutions Worldwide.  

Thus far (July 9, 2021) 27 Canadian institutions have provided their responses. (click to access list)

Republic of Ireland:  “The Virus does not Exist”

“⁣Gemma O’Doherty is an Investigative Journalist in Ireland.

“This Irish Investigation into Covid shows that The Department of Health refuses to confirm the existence of a “virus” in writing. Confirmation that the virus was never isolated.”

“As part of our legal action we had been demanding the evidence that this virus actually exists [as well as] evidence that lock downs actually have any impact on the spread of viruses; that face-masks are safe, and do deter the spread of viruses – They don’t. No such studies exist; that social distancing is based in science – It isn’t. it’s made up; that contact tracing has any bearing on the spread of a virus – of course it doesn’t. This organization here – is making it up as they go along.” – Gemma O’Doherty 

Isolation of the Virus. The Legal Battle in Alberta. Patrick King

Patrick King. The Virus Has Not Been Isolated! “No I Did Not Win The Court Case”. “They Do Not Have the Evidence”.

The following video features Patrick King in his legal Battle against the Alberta Government. There are a lot of people in Alberta and around the World who are Fighting against the Big Lie. 

lbry://@PressForTruth#4/Pat-King-Interview#6

Concluding Remarks: “Biggest Medical Fraud in World History”

SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated. Does the virus Exist?

Neither the Chinese authorities nor the CDC, the WHO, national governments, scientific /  health authorities have provided evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been  isolated /purified.

Based on the investigative research of Christine Malley we have access to the responses of numerous governments and health authorities, including that provided by the Republic of Ireland to journalist Gemma O’Doherty.

What this means is that the entire covid narrative falls flat.

We have been systematically misled.

Everything you have been told by your governments is a lie, a complexity of lies and falsehoods.

There is no pandemic. The isolation / purification of the virus has not been undertaken.

All the policies adopted by governments worldwide allegedly to “save lives” are illegal, socially destructive and in violation of fundamental human rights.

These policies have been instrumental in “destroying people’s lives”.

Dr. Stephen Frost  refers to the alleged “Covid pandemic” as The Biggest Medical Fraud in World History”.

From the outset in January 2020, the flawed and invalid RT-PCR test was used to “detect” the alleged 2019 SARS-CoV-2 virus,  despite the fact that details regarding the isolation/purification of the original virus were not available.

All far-reaching policy decisions imposed on people Worlwide were based on a data bank of fake  case positives coupled with false mortality data pertaining to Covid-19 related deaths.

Curbing the alleged SARS-CoV-2 pandemic through the imposition of face masks, social distancing, closing down of national economies are of a criminal nature, they have absolutely no validity,

The original strain of SARS-CoV-2 has not be isolated /purified: How does that affect the process of so-called “detection” of the “deadly variants” of the original virus?

Mortality and Morbidity: While there is “No Killer Virus”, there is a “Killer Vaccine”.

While the SARS-CoV-2 virus is presented by the media and the governments as a “killer virus” (when in fact the WHO and CDC describe it as “similar to seasonal influenza”, a totally invalid and dysfunctional Covid -19 vaccine is currently being imposed on the entire population of Planet Earth: 7.9 billion people.

It’s a multibillion dollar endeavour with Pfizer in the lead, establishing a near Worldwide monopoly for the sale and distribution of the mRNA killer vaccine.

Important Question: 

How did Big Pharma manage to develop a vaccine (sponsored by the WHO, GAVI, the Gates Foundation, et al) with a mandate “to protect people” against a virus which has not been isolated/ purified?

Moreover, 2019 SARS-CoV-2 has been categorized as similar to the 2003 SARS-CoV which means that the 2019 SARS-CoV-2 is not a novel virus. 

The legitimacy of the Covid vaccine project hinges upon the hundreds of thousands of RT-PCR fake positive cases Worldwide combined with fake Covid related mortality data.

Big Pharma’s mRNA vaccine has resulted in countless deaths and injuries Worldwide which are barely reported by the mainstream media. 

While we do not have figures for the entire Planet, the latest official figures for the European Union and the U.S are revealing. Bear in mind they vastly underestimate the real trends in vaccin related mortality and morbidity:EU/EEA/Switzerland to 31 July 2021 – 20,595 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.94 million injuries, per EudraVigilance Database.

UK to 21 July 2021 – 1,517 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.1 million injuries, per MHRA Yellow Card Scheme.

USA to 23 July 2021 – 11,940 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 2.4 million injuries, per VAERS database.

TOTAL for EU/UK/USA – 34,052 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 5.46 million injuries reported as at 1 August 2021

Nota Bene: It is important to be aware that the official figures above (reported to the health authorities) are but a small percentage of the actual figures. Furthermore, people continue to die (and suffer injury) from the injections with every day which passes.  (D4CE

So why are governments pressuring people to get vaccinated?

Heads of State and heads of government Worldwide are being pressured, bribed, coopted and/or threatened by powerful financial interests into accepting the Covid vaccine consensus. The vaccine passport is the endgame, which constitutes a transition towards digital tyranny.

The study and reports analyzed in this article should be used to confront politicians.

Does the virus Exist?

The governments and the WHO do not have a Leg to Stand On. And neither does Bill Gates.

What we must seek is to confront a very fragile consensus, which is based on fraud and deceit.

PS: I remain indebted to Christine Massey for her extensive research and investigation on the issue of isolation /purification.

The Word For It Is ‘Propaganda’: Wikipedia Co-Founder Says Website Has Morphed Into Playground For Rich And Powerful Manipulators

Wikipedia fails to reflect relevant viewpoints on hot-button topics and describes center-left establishment worldviews, its co-founder Larry Sanger said. This consensus reality is prone to nefarious manipulation by powers that be.

the word for it is ‘propaganda’ wikipedia co founder says website has morphed into playground for rich and powerful manipulators

“There is a big nasty complex game being played behind the scenes to make the articles say what somebody wants them to say,” Sanger said this week, blasting the current community culture at Wikipedia. “There are all kinds of tricks that people can play to ‘win’ it.”

Sanger, who launched – along with Jimmy Wales – the world’s premier website for reference materials, has become a vocal critic of his brainchild. He jokingly called himself “ex-founder,” referring to both his criticism and Wikipedia’s attempts to distance itself from his person.

This week he talked about what he sees as a problematic change in the online encyclopedia to Freddie Sayers, the host of UnHerd magazine’s show Lockdown TV.

Today, Wikipedia is a “pretty reliable establishment in its viewpoint, whatever the viewpoint is,” he said.

This is ironic, he added, considering that the website was founded by “a couple of libertarians, who at least in the beginning were really tolerant and open to all sorts of anti-establishment views being canvassed within the articles.”

The user-edited encyclopedia was supposed to lay out known facts and prominent points of view on how to interpret them. But on “hot-button topics,” whether political or cultural, it is now clearly pushing the viewpoint of the center-left, obfuscating and downplaying the opinions of other groups, Sanger said.

This approach is inherently flawed because it denies people the right to make informed decisions in life.

“We do not want to be led by the nose. We, being free individuals, want to make up our minds. And if we don’t then there is something wrong with us, I think,” he explained.

Of course, there are people who want to be told what they should think by some authority figure, be it a religious leader, party officials or some dictator. And a resource that caters to such urges does a disservice, Sanger argued.

The word for it is ‘propaganda’ when it’s systematic. And that’s what we are really dealing with on Wikipedia.

Such a resource also becomes a useful tool for those who want to manipulate public perceptions of reality to their own benefit.

There is an entire industry that monitors Wikipedia pages relevant to their clients and pushes forward edits on their behalf. Some of it goes under the radar, since Wikipedia editors are not obliged to identify themselves and disclose conflicts of interests.

“If only one version of facts is allowed, then it gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control over things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that,” Sanger pointed out.

Part of the problem is in Wikipedia’s deliberate reliance on secondary sources, which are mostly media reports, to back article contents. Those sources can be biased themselves, and the Wikipedia editor community grandfathers those biases by excluding some outlets like the Daily Mail or Fox News as valid references. Increasing polarization of the media further exacerbated the problem.

The result is that now, “if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia,” Sanger said.

Joe Biden’s page barely mentions the controversy involving Ukraine and his son Hunter’s sinecure job there, and does so to dismiss it as a manufactured political attack against the incumbent US president.

Sanger believes it is impossible to have an encyclopedia that lists universally accepted facts of life and that honestly reflecting existing divisions and debates is the best thing one can hope for.

“You cannot have an ‘encyclopedia of fact’ if by ‘fact’ you mean something that all responsible researchers on a topic agree to, because it’s often the case that there is disagreement among experts on all kinds of things,” he said.

The problem with ‘consensus reality’ on Wikipedia goes far beyond political issues. Topics like eastern medicine (which the site dismisses as ‘quackery’), Christianity (which Wikipedia describes from a liberal academic point of view) or Covid-19 are all affected by it, Sanger explained. The latter is a good example of how the website joined in with the larger Big Tech drive to silence voices that the establishment deemed undesirable in public discourse.

“There are a lot of Nobel Prize winners, distinguished doctors and so forth, whose views are not only not welcomed on Wikipedia, they are literally censored on YouTube and Facebook and Twitter, where videos of interviews made with such people are removed, because they directly contradict the narrative,” he said.

Silicon Valley censorship is disconcerting, Sanger said, adding that he believes a government-enforced neutrality in online platforms would have been a more chilling alternative, since it would amount to government censorship.

Some might argue that governments simply outsource their censorship to private companies, which are not subject to free speech restrictions like the First Amendment.

This week the White House acknowledged it was flagging “problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

Sanger hopes that a drive to decentralize the internet, bringing it closer to the free spirit of the ‘Wild West’ days of the web, would help counter this push to gag dissent.

A few years ago he proposed a ‘Declaration of Digital Independence,’ which would give internet users a set of rights for free speech, privacy and security and would rein in the corporate control of online public spaces.

Source: RT.com