The U.S. Government’s Vast New Privatized Censorship Regime

By Jenin Younes

One warm weekend in October of 2020, three impeccably credentialed epidemiologists—Jayanta Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff, of Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard Universities respectively—gathered with a few journalists, writers, and economists at an estate in the Berkshires where the American Institute for Economic Research had brought together critics of lockdowns and other COVID-related government restrictions. On Sunday morning shortly before the guests departed, the scientists encapsulated their views—that lockdowns do more harm than good, and that resources should be devoted to protecting the vulnerable rather than shutting society down—in a joint communique dubbed the “Great Barrington Declaration,” after the town in which it was written.

The declaration began circulating on social media and rapidly garnered signatures, including from other highly credentialed scientists. Most mainstream news outlets and the scientists they chose to quote denounced the declaration in no uncertain terms. When contacted by reporters, Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins of the NIH publicly and vociferously repudiated the “dangerous” declaration, smearing the scientists—all generally considered to be at the top of their fields—as “fringe epidemiologists.” Over the next several months, the three scientists faced a barrage of condemnation: They were called eugenicists and anti-vaxxers; it was falsely asserted that they were “Koch-funded” and that they had written the declaration for financial gain. Attacks on the Great Barrington signatories proliferated throughout social media and in the pages of The New York Times and Guardian.

Yet emails obtained pursuant to a FOIA request later revealed that these attacks were not the products of an independent objective news-gathering process of the type that publications like the Times and the Guardian still like to advertise. Rather, they were the fruits of an aggressive attempt to shape the news by the same government officials whose policies the epidemiologists had criticized. Emails between Fauci and Collins revealed that the two officials had worked together and with media outlets as various as Wired and The Nation to orchestrate a “takedown” of the declaration.

Nor did the targeting of the scientists stop with the bureaucrats they had implicitly criticized. Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff soon learned that their declaration was being heavily censored on social media to prevent their scientific opinions from reaching the public. Kulldorff—then the most active of the three online—soon began to experience censorship of his own social media posts. For example, Twitter censored one of Kulldorff’s tweets asserting that:

“Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older, higher-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Not children.”

Posts on Kulldorff’s Twitter and LinkedIn criticizing mask and vaccine mandates were labeled misleading or removed entirely. In March of 2021, YouTube took down a video depicting a roundtable discussion that Bhattacharya, Gupta, Kulldorff, and Dr. Scott Atlas had with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, in which the participants critiqued mask and vaccine mandates.

Because of this censorship, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff are now plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, a case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, as well as the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which is representing them and two other individuals, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines. The plaintiffs allege that the Biden administration and a number of federal agencies coerced social media platforms into censoring them and others for criticizing the government’s COVID policies. In doing so, the Biden administration and relevant agencies had turned any ostensible private action by the social media companies into state action, in violation of the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has long recognized and Justice Thomas explained in a concurring opinion just last year, “[t]he government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

Federal district courts have recently dismissed similar cases on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove state action. According to those judges, public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so, still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action. Put another way, the judges declined to take the government at its word. But the Missouri judge reached a different conclusion, determining there was enough evidence in the record to infer that the government was involved in social media censorship, granting the plaintiffs’ request for discovery at the preliminary injunction stage.

Collusion Between Government and “Big Tech” To Suppress Free Speech: Illegal Censorship of Stories involving Covid Jab Refusal

The Missouri documents, along with some obtained through discovery in Berenson v. Twitter and a FOIA request by America First Legal, expose the extent of the administration’s appropriation of big tech to effect a vast and unprecedented regime of viewpoint-based censorship on the information that most Americans see, hear and otherwise consume. At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Correspondence publicized in Missouri further corroborates the theory that the companies dramatically increased censorship under duress from the government, strengthening the First Amendment claim. For example, shortly after President Biden asserted in July of 2021 that Facebook (Meta) was “killing people” by permitting “misinformation” about COVID vaccines to percolate, an executive from the company contacted the surgeon general to appease the White House. In a text message to Murthy, the executive acknowledged that the “FB team” was “feeling a little aggrieved” as “it’s not great to be accused of killing people,” while he sought to “de-escalate and work together collaboratively.” These are not the words of a person who is acting freely; to the contrary, they denote the mindset of someone who considers himself subordinate to, and subject to punishment by, a superior. Another text, exchanged between Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and another CISA employee who now works at Microsoft, reads: “Platforms have got to get more comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain.” This is another incontrovertible piece of evidence that social media companies are censoring content under duress from the government, and not due to their directors’ own ideas of the corporate or common good.

Further, emails expressly establish that the social media companies intensified censorship efforts and removed particular individuals from their platforms in response to the government’s demands. Just a week after President Biden accused social media companies of “killing people,” the Meta executive mentioned above wrote the surgeon general an email telling him, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken further to address the ‘disinfo dozen’: we removed 17 additional Pages, Groups, and Instagram accounts tied to [them].” About a month later, the same executive informed Murthy that Meta intended to expand its COVID policies to “further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content” and that the company was “increasing the strength of our demotions for COVID and vaccine-related content.”

Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter and a prominent critic of government-imposed COVID restrictions, has publicized internal Twitter communications he obtained through discovery in his own lawsuit showing that high-ranking members of the Biden administration, including White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor Andrew Slavitt, had pushed Twitter to permanently suspend him from the platform. In messages from April 2021, a Twitter employee noted that a meeting with the White House had gone relatively well, though the company’s representatives had fielded “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” to which “mercifully we had answers” (emphasis added).

About two months later, days after Dr. Fauci publicly deemed Berenson a danger, and immediately following the president’s statement that social media companies were “killing people,” and despite assurances from high-ups at the company that his account was in no danger, Twitter permanently suspended Berenson’s account. If this does not qualify as government censorship of an individual based on official disapproval of his viewpoints, it would be difficult to say what might. Berenson was reinstated on Twitter in July 2022 as part of the settlement in his lawsuit.

In 1963, the Supreme Court, deciding Bantam Books v. Sullivan, held that “public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against” booksellers who carried materials containing obscenity could constitute a First Amendment violation. The same reasoning should apply to the Biden administration campaign to pressure tech companies into enforcing its preferred viewpoints.

The question of how the Biden administration has succeeded in jawboning big tech into observing its strictures is not particularly difficult to answer. Tech companies, many of which hold monopoly positions in their markets, have long feared and resisted government regulation. Unquestionably—and as explicitly revealed by the text message exchanged between Murthy and the Twitter executive—the prospect of being held liable for COVID deaths is an alarming one. Just like the booksellers in Bantam, social media platforms undoubtedly “do not lightly disregard” such possible consequences, as Twitter’s use of the term “mercifully” indicates.

It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya and Kulldorff will be able to show that Fauci and Collins explicitly ordered tech companies to censor them and their Great Barrington Declaration. More discovery lies ahead, from top White House officials including Dr. Fauci, that may yield evidence of even more direct involvement by the government in preventing Americans from hearing their views. But Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, and countless social media users have had their First Amendment rights violated nonetheless.

The government’s involvement in censorship of specific perspectives, and direct role in escalating such censorship, has what is known in First Amendment law as a chilling effect: Fearing the repercussions of articulating certain views, people self-censor by avoiding controversial topics. Countless Americans, including the Missouri plaintiffs, have attested that they do exactly that for fear of losing influential and sometimes lucrative social media accounts, which can contain and convey significant social and intellectual capital.

Moreover, the Supreme Court recognizes that a corollary of the First Amendment right to speak is the right to receive information because “the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender’s First Amendment right to send them.” All Americans have been deprived—by the United States government—of their First Amendment rights to hear the views of Alex Berenson, as well as Drs. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, and myriad additional people, like the reporters who broke the Hunter Biden laptop story for the New York Post and found themselves denounced as agents of Russian disinformation, who have been censored by social media platforms at the urging of the U.S. government. That deprivation strangled public debate on multiple issues of undeniably public importance. It allowed Fauci, Collins, and various other government actors and agencies, to mislead the public into believing there was ever a scientific consensus on lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. It also arguably influenced the 2020 election.

The administration has achieved public acquiescence to its censorship activities by convincing many Americans that the dissemination of “misinformation” and “disinformation” on social media presents a grave threat to public safety and even national security. Over half a century ago, in his notorious concurrence in New York Times v. United States (in which the Nixon administration sought to prevent the newspaper from printing the Pentagon Papers) Justice Hugo Black rejected the view that the government may invoke such concepts to override the First Amendment: “[t]he word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment,” he wrote. Justice Black cited a 1937 opinion by Justice Charles Hughes explaining that this approach was woefully misguided: “The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assembly … that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.”

The Founders of our country understood that line-drawing becomes virtually impossible once censorship begins and that the personal views and biases of those doing the censoring will inevitably come into play. Moreover, they recognized that sunlight is the best disinfectant: The cure for bad speech is good speech. The cure for lies, truth. Silencing people does not mean problematic ideas disappear; it only drives their adherents into echo chambers. People who are booted off Twitter, for example, often turn to Gab and Gettr, where they are less likely to encounter challenges to patently false posts claiming, for example, that COVID vaccines are toxic.

Indeed, this case could not illustrate more clearly the First Amendment’s chief purpose, and why the framers of the Constitution did not create an exception for “misinformation.” Government actors are just as prone to bias, hubris, and error as the rest of us. Drs. Fauci and Collins, enamored of newfound fame and basking in self-righteousness, took it upon themselves to suppress debate about the most important subject of the day. Had Americans learned of the Great Barrington Declaration and been given the opportunity to contemplate its ideas, and had scientists like Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff been permitted to speak freely, the history of the pandemic era may have unfolded with far less tragedy—and with far less damage to the institutions that are supposed to protect public health.

The Predatory Male Behavior Of So-Called Transgender Women…

William Thomas AKA Lia Thomas

By Eleanor Dashwood

How do you know so-called transgender women aren’t real women? Because they act just like predatory men who, rather than having sympathy for women concerned when physically intact men invade their territory, revel in the ability to impose their will on these women.

I once had a conversation with a strapping, athletic, and tall young man I was dating about how I, and women in general, feel vulnerable walking or traveling alone in many situations he took for granted. He had never thought about that wary anxiety women feel walking through a dimly lit parking lot at night, or turning around at footsteps, assessing the environment, noticing men eying them and, in response, feeling vulnerable and unprepared and instantly calculating how to respond if things go south.

The man wasn’t naïve or insensitive, but the emotions I described were unfamiliar to him. He had never pondered how different women’s day-to-day experiences were from his own. He enjoyed unthinking confidence due to his strength, size, and sex.

Of course, men can be vulnerable, but it should go without saying that their reality is different than women’s. Women are generally smaller and physically weaker than most men, so savvy women learn to be careful.

Women also rely on the traditional social contract ensuring single-sex privacy in places in which they may be naked or exposed, such as dressing rooms, bathrooms, or locker rooms. She expects that, in these spaces, she’ll be in the company of women and free from voyeurs or exhibitionists.

Sadly, this social contract has been broken because mixed-up or opportunistic men claiming to be women are allowed to invade these private spaces. These men’s insensitivity to women’s fear and discomfort is additional proof that they are not women.

They don’t understand women’s fear, vulnerability, and discomfort because they come from the same perspective as my male friend. It has never been a part of their experience because their point of view is male.

Ironically, my male friend would never have tried to invade a female space and would have respected women’s feelings, unlike many trans activists. Rather than respecting women’s feelings of vulnerability, many of these men in dresses enjoy the power of being in those settings, where they can view exposed women and show their male genitalia with impunity (something other cannot do legally), all because they claim to be women. They behave exactly like predatory men, overtly pressuring women with their power and dominance, and leaving the women unable to fight back. Examples abound.

Julie Jaman, an 80-year-old liberal feminist in Port Townsend, Washington, became uncomfortable while naked in a locker room at her local YMCA when she heard a male voice. She observed a man in a woman’s swimsuit assisting little girls who were changing into their bathing suits. When she complained that this was inappropriate, she was punished.

Instead of the Y addressing and respecting her reasonable feelings, Jaman was labeled a “transphobe,” booted from the pool, and permanently barred from the Y where she had swum without incident for 30 years. When she protested publicly, trans activists stormed the stage, physically intimidating her to disrupt her speech.

The mayor and city council rewarded the activists and announced the city’s “allyship” with the trans community. The message to Jaman and other women was that trans rights supersede women’s rights and that women must take it and shut up about their discomfort.

A guy who has been wearing a dress for about a year has more rights in a women’s locker room than an 80-year-old lifelong female. The alliance between the government and a trans guy with no compassion for women, despite claiming to be one, will create a chilling denial of privacy for women.

Riley Gaines a swimmer from the University of Kentucky, described the shock and discomfort she and other women swimmers felt when having to change clothes in a locker room in front of a male swimmer, Will Thomas, who claims to be female. Women coming in from a pool have no choice but to become naked as they change clothes. The only privacy they can seek is toilet stalls.

Will Thomas, who identifies as “Lia Thomas,” has male genitalia, is tall and broad-shouldered, and is built like a male swimmer. Oh, and he’s sexually attracted to women. By calling himself female, he was empowered to stroll around a female locker room despite the women made uncomfortable as he looked at them and strolled about naked, his “female” penis in full view.

When women complained, they were told to accept the situation or not swim at all—and they were offered counseling. As with Port Townsend, Thomas behaved like a classic predatory male, insensitive to women’s feelings and discomfort, while the universities helped enforce their humiliation and abuse.

At Wi Spa in Los Angeles, a man claiming to be a woman entered the female-only areas where women are completely nude. A mother with her young daughter was horrified to see a man sitting with his legs spread in front of all the women. He seemed to be enjoying their discomfort. (Turns out he’s a serial sexual offender.) The helpless spa had to comply with California law requiring facilities to accommodate people’s “gender identity.  Antifa responded to women’s complaints with rioting.

In New Jersey, a so-called transwoman in prison for manslaughter was sent to a women’s prison and, despite being “female,” magically impregnated two other inmates with his external vagina, which looked and functioned just like a penis. In prison, predatory men who claim to be female are allowed unfettered access to completely helpless women.

There are many travesties in the trans movement, from the deranged parents eager to be the parent of a trans child to the corrupt doctors and mental health professionals now claiming that children can know they are trans in utero (even though, simultaneously, they’re just a clump of cells), to the teachers lying to parents and manipulating confused children, to Big Pharma creating a lifetime of misery for huge profits. This is a hideous war on reality, but it is also a hideous attack on the safety and sanctity of women’s spaces, and politicians, universities, and activists, spurred by ideology and profit, are telling women to shut up and take it.

When my daughter was in high school, she participated in a wonderful program that took teenage girls on a wilderness backpacking trip. It was a life-changing experience for her. It gave her personal confidence and was the first step in many more possibilities for her.

Recently, I thought about this same program for a lovely young woman I know who could benefit from an empowering experience. Sadly, when I went online to find the link for her, I discovered (unsurprisingly) that this all-girls program now emphasizes nonbinary and trans girls.

Gone is the safe space my daughter enjoyed. It has been highjacked by boys who call themselves girls and girls who have no idea what they are. It is no longer a female-only space. I couldn’t recommend it to this young woman as I felt it would harm her. One by one, women are being bullied out of their own spaces by dudes in dresses and their misguided enablers. We must fight back.

About Those ‘Right Wing’ Threats of Violence

Picture

Ooooh. Such scary-looking people.

AUGUST 15, 2022

NY Times:As Right-Wing Rhetoric Escalates, So Do Threats and Violence

Both threats of political violence and actual attacks have become a steady reality of American life. Experts blame dehumanizing and apocalyptic language.

In the wake of that very strange “FBI raid” on Trump’s Florida estate last week, the “latest thing” talking points — with Sulzberger’s Times at the fore — have been dutifully distributed to the deranged denizens of the tyrannical kingdom of Libtardia. From the hallowed halls of quackademia, to the camous coffee shops, to printed propaganda, to the tell-lie-vision, to the Social Media activists, to the homosexual bath houses — the thoughtless Marxist Mantra now is all about “right wing violence.”

From the article:“Scholars who study political violence point to a common thread: the heightened use of bellicose, dehumanizing and apocalyptic language, particularly by prominent figures in right-wing politics and media.

Several right-wing or Republican figures reacted to the search of Mar-a-Lago not only with demands to dismantle the F.B.I., but also with warnings that the action had triggered “war.”

This “latest thing” about “right wing violence” offers us an excellent “teachable moment” to set the historical record straight as to the history of political violence in America — a murderous phenomenon that always has been, and still is, almost exclusively a left wing problem.

A trip down memory-hole lane for just a few past events.

There are plenty more incidents of Leftist violence — worldwide as well — always committed under the orders of and with the protection of “higher powers” that we can add to that list; but you get the point. This “right wing violence” theme is just another classic case of psychopaths and liars projecting their evil and their insanity onto us.

And mind you, that’s just the low-level violence carried out by the foot soldiers. Far more serious and deadly is the state-ordered military violence that has been imposed upon so many millions of innocent people by the very same Globalist Cabal that is now sanctimoniously wringing its hands over the mere language that some us “right wing” patriots are using.

Have a look at this list of “violent” acts — all of them genocidal and all of them enthusiastically cheered on by the oh-so peace-loving “paper of record” and the rest of the Jurisprudence while we of the true “far right” were yelling “Stop!”

  • World War I
  • Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution & Civil War
  • World War II
  • Korean War
  • Vietnam War
  • Afghanistan Proxy War Against the USSR
  • Bombing & Invasion of Panama
  • Gulf / Iraq War I
  • Deadly Sanctions (20 years)
  • First Lady Hillary’s Siege & Firebombing at Waco, Texas
  • Bombing of Serbia
  • Gulf War / Iraq War II & the War on Terror
  • Drone Strikes on multiple countries
  • War on Libya
  • War on Syria
  • Proxy Wars (ISIS, Ukraine etc)

Oceans of blood! Ah, so “non violent” is the Globalist-Marxist Left, eh? Frankly, a bit of actual violence directed at the devils who have been physically and mentally torturing innocent humanity for so long wouldn’t be such a bad thing. But let’s leave the killing to the White Hats — who will do it legally. I just hope we get to see some of these characters executed on TV one day — journalists included.

Putin is Winning Global Information War

AUGUST 12, 2022


NY Times:
 How Russian Propaganda Is Reaching Beyond English Speakers


Social media companies have taken steps to restrict Russian state media accounts. But posts from those accounts still spread in Spanish, Arabic and other languages.


By: Steven Lee Myers

In this textbook example of the psychosis known as “projection” — world class propagandist and “Pulitzer Prize winner” Steven Lee Myers not only applauds Twitter & Facebook censorship of “disinformation” — but goes a step further by moaning and groaning about how “Russian propaganda” (truth) continues to influence the perception of Putin’s righteous military operation in nations around the world.

It’s not enough to suppress the information flow for the English-speaking peoples. Meyers and his tribesmen want the whole world kept in the dark. The Satanic inversion of reality presented in his article is astonishing. The good news is that, in more and more places around the world, the Jurisprudence Armada’s propaganda flotilla is no match for Russia’s information warfare campaign. Meyers’ lies are easy to deconstruct. Let’s clean up some of his filth.

1. The despicable deceiver Steven Lee Myers 
is also the author of “The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin.” // 2. A Pulitzer Prize constitutes, in and of itself, direct first impression evidence of journalistic criminality.

Meyers: In Spanish in Latin America or in Arabic across the Middle East, a steady stream of Russian propaganda and disinformation ………
Analysis: Deep State-affiliated news agencies also operate in all nations of the world. So if US / NATO version of events was true, there wouldn’t be any need to worry about “Russian propaganda and disinformation” because, in a fair head-to-head match, truth will always trump falsehood. What Meyers fears isn’t the “disinformation,” but rather — the competition.

Meyers: … continues to try to justify President Vladimir V. Putin’s unprovoked invasion
Analysis: More projection. The word “unprovoked” actually applies to NATO’s relentless eastward expansion and Jukraine’s violent oppression of the Russian-speaking Donbas republics — Donetsk and Luhansk.

Meyers: The result has been a geographical and cultural asymmetry in the information war over Ukraine that has helped undercut American- and European-led efforts to put broad international pressure on Mr. Putin to call off his war.
Translation: The days when (((they))) could invent and sell the most preposterous and unchallenged lies to the sheeple of the world are — thanks to the Internet and sophisticated Russian communication operations — over.

Meyers:  The failure of Facebook and Twitter to impose stronger checks on Russian posts in non-English languages has begun to draw criticism as the war drags on.
Analysis: There was a time, not too long ago, when most libtards openly expressed horror over the mere thought of news organizations or platforms “imposing strong checks” on the flow of information — even if it was “hate speech.” — “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” went the old cliche (falsely attributed to Voltaire)

Of course, they made such self-righteous declarations during an era when they were absolutely dominating the info-war. Now that we truthers — thanks to the Internet — have crawled back into the ballgame, the Voltairian mask of magnanimity has dropped as abusive Orwellian “cancel culture” becomes the “the new normal” for the Left.

Meyers: Two weeks ago, a bipartisan group of United States senators added to the criticism, accusing the platforms of allowing Russia to “amplify and export its lies abroad” in Spanish.
Analysis: U.S. Senators “accusing” platforms of “allowing” the Russian side of the story to be presented? Do Slimes readers not see a problem with this? Evidently not.

My times have changed. On the day after Japan’s justified 1941 attack on the Pearl Harbor naval base in Hawaii, this same NY Times actually printed the Japanese Emperor’s entire declaration (here) —  in which he put the blame for the event on the United States. Now (((they))) want Putin to be cancelled — even in foreign countries?

The N.W.O. media monopoly is no more… and Meyers doesn’t like it.
1. RT in Spanish // 2. RT in Arabic

Meyers: The lawmakers urged the companies to do more to block Russia’s Spanish outlets, including RT en Español and Sputnik Mundo.
Analysis: Keeping Americans in the dark isn’t enough. The scum feel they have the right to shape the opinions of the whole world.

Meyers: Russian disinformation is flowing freely in parts of the world where the war in Ukraine is viewed in less stark, good-versus-evil terms as in the United States and Europe.
Analysis: “Good vs Evil” — total reality inversion. Putin actually is a good man (read The War Against Putin.”) Zelensky and his Globalist handlers are the evil ones.

Meyers: Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Tim Kaine of Virginia, both Democrats, and Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, wrote in a letter to Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg.
Analysis: Senator Bill Cassidy, FYI, is notorious for having stabbed Trump in the back after “January 6th” . It figures he’d be the “bipartisan” part of this tyrannical effort. After crossing “The Donald,” Cassidy’s days are numbered.

Meyers: On these sites, Russia’s war is falsely portrayed as a just cause …..
Analysis: Actually, Russia’s struggle against the Globalist West is very much a “just cause” – 100% and easily proven. Indeed, Mike King wrote a whole book on the topic which – by the way – was banned by Amazon in 2021. There will be no “Pulitzer Prizes” for Mr. King.

Enemies of free speech who fear “Russian propaganda” — Senator Menendez (D-NJ)  — Senator  Kaine (D-DE) — Senator Cassidy (R-LA)

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

UK Government To Launch Digital ID Technology In April 22

The UK government is pushing ahead with its nationwide digital ID plans, despite half of the responses to its public consultation on digital identity opposing the idea.

uk government to launch digital id technology in april 22

Source

On April 6, 2022, new digital identity document verification technology (IDVT) that enables data sharing between public bodies and businesses for the purpose of identity verification will be introduced. It will be made available to UK employers, landlords, and letting agents who can use it to digitally carry out pre-employment criminal record checks, right to work checks, and right to rent checks.

The introduction of this digital IDVT is part of the government’s far-reaching digital ID plans which were announced in March. The government has framed these digital ID plans as a way for UK citizens to “easily and quickly prove their identity using digital methods instead of having to rely on traditional physical documents.”

Under these digital ID plans, UK citizens will be able to “create a digital identity with a trusted organisation” which can be used “in-person or online” and “via a phone app or website.” These trusted organisations will then be given a “legal gateway” to “carry out verification checks against official data held by public bodies to help validate a person’s identity.” The government will also allow the “trust” generated by a single successful digital identity check to be passed to other organisations “where appropriate.”

The trusted organisations that provide these digital identity solutions will need to get accredited and certified under legislation that the government plans to introduce. Once accredited and certified, they’ll be “given a trust mark to demonstrate their compliance and will be defined as being a trust-marked organisation.”

A new interim governing body, the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (ODIA), will be set up in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) and it will have the power to issue these trust marks. The ODIA will also publish a publicly viewable list of trust-marked organisations.

new legislation set to make digital identities more trustworthy and secure

Source

Other companies that rely on the digital identity solutions provided by trust-marked organizations won’t need to be certified but may be subject to “flow-down conditions” such as agreements to not share the information they receive.

Before announcing these digital ID plans, the government sought views and feedback on its proposed approach to digital identity via a public consultation.

50% of the responses to this consultation were “against digital identity in principle” but the government didn’t include these responses in its statistical analysis of responses to the consultation because they “did not engage with the questions.”

However, the government insisted that “outside the context of producing the statistical analysis, we have taken these responses into account as part of this consultation exercise.”

The government also admitted that some respondents feared that “digital identities are going to be made mandatory for all people” but dismissed these concerns as “false” and said it will seek feedback on how to “encourage more inclusive digital identities.”

“As set out in the consultation, there are no plans to make digital identities mandatory, but we recognise they are an emerging technology and people may not be fully aware of the privacy and security benefits,” the government said.

“Therefore we will take steps to increase understanding amongst potential users and engage with civil society groups to receive their expert feedback on how to increase inclusion, now and into the future.”

The government added that it’s “committed to ensuring” that “people will still be able to use available paper documentation.”

The government’s digital ID framework has completed alpha testing. The next steps are a beta publication followed by beta testing before the framework is formalized in legislation.

The government cited “positive feedback received about the ability to conduct right to work and right to rent checks remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic” as one of its reasons for initiating its review of digital ID technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government embraced jjab passports – a technology that shares many similarities with digital ID by requiring citizens to use a digital pass.

These jjab passports were used to scoop up large amounts of data from UK citizens, some of which was shared with private companies.

identity document validation technology in the right to work and right to rent schemes, and bs pre employment checking

Source

Vaccine passports are one of many examples of the UK government using or proposing the use of technology to surveil its citizens. Other examples include it secretly surveilling millions of COVID jjab recipients via their phones, proposing a social credit style app to encourage healthy eating, and proposing the increased use of surveillance drones to “protect” women.

Despite its history of surveillance, the government insists that this digital ID technology will have “strong security and privacy standards.”

The government’s digital ID plans were announced in the same month that the UK government’s Online Safety Bill began its legislative journey. This bill mandates the implementation of identity and age verification technology on many large online platforms.

This current attempt to introduce digital ID comes almost a decade after the UK government launched its 2013 digital ID project “Verify” which was blasted by the National Audit Office and internal Parliamentary committees for “failing the public” and missing all of its performance targets.

The Absolute HORRORS Of The Social Credit System That Is Coming To The Western World

A few years ago, in a book called The Game’s Afoot (published in 2018), the author wrote that the Chinese Government was giving people marks according to behavior. Its called social engineering, and citizens were being ranked and rated according to their behavior.

social credit system tyranny

‘ The Government,’ It said, ‘will measure people’s behavior in order to decide what services they are entitled to. Anyone who incurs black marks for traffic offences, fare dodging or jay walking will find that they are no longer entitled to the full range of public services and rights. Moreover, internet activity will also be used to assess behavior. Individuals who do bad things on the internet (or whose searches are considered questionable) will find themselves ‘black marked’. Individuals who have ‘responsible’ jobs will be subjected to enhanced scrutiny.’

It was called a social credit score and I wrote then that it was likely that Western Governments would soon follow suit.

And they are doing so with great enthusiasm. It might not have obviously reached your town just yet – but it will, oh it will.

China has led the way because the Chinese system is more ruthlessly efficient than anything the West can offer. The Chinese government has more control over everything and the people don’t have much control over anything.

It works very easily.

Everyone starts off with so many points.

And a smart app on every phone measures behavior and helps the authorities decide whether or not you are good citizen.

There are, of course, video cameras absolutely everywhere watching to see whether you cross the road at the wrong time, smoke in public, throw down litter or do anything considered anti-social or inappropriate. If you talk to the wrong sort of people you’ll find your credit rating goes down. Stand and talk to me and you’ll get black marks.

China has one camera for every two people and they’re equipped with facial recognition technology that can pick an individual out of a football crowd in less time than it takes to say `surely they can’t do that!’

Supermarket computers watch to see how much you spend on alcohol, cigarettes, sweets and fatty foods. You’ll lose points if you spend too much on the wrong sort of food.

Local authorities measure how much recycling you put out and cameras in the bins will tell computers how much food you’ve thrown away and how much excess packaging you’ve had to discard.

Of course, social credit scores are already here in the West and they have been introduced slowly.

In the UK for example, drivers of more expensive motor cars have to pay a special, massively increased tax to use a motor car on the roads. That’s a blatant punishment for spending a lot on a car.

On the other hand, citizens who drive electric cars do not have to pay anything towards the building, maintenance and repair of roads. They are exempt from the tax because they are `good’ citizens. Their cars use the roads just as much as cars which are powered with petrol or diesel but they are exempt. Drivers of petrol or diesel powered cars are punished for being `bad’ citizens and must pay ever-rising annual taxes to pay for the roads. The system ignores the fact that electric cars have been proven to be no better for the environment than petrol or diesel powered cars. Drive your car into a city and you’ll have to pay a special penalty.

If you live in a house that is bigger than you need then you will be marked down and your taxes will rise. If you have spare rooms you’ll be punished. If you do a useful job and give money to charity you’ll get extra points. If you criticise the Government then you’ll lose points.

When you’re away from home, the authorities will, of course, know where you are all the time.

Indeed, if you behave badly you won’t be allowed to go far from home. If you haven’t obeyed all the health regulations you won’t be allowed to travel on public transport, fly anywhere or go abroad.

If your social credit rating goes down you won’t be able to borrow money, buy a house or book a decent room in a hotel.

If your rating goes down too far you won’t be allowed to go into hospital, and if you get in by accident they’ll slam a Do Not Rescusitate notice around your neck before you can say `what’s that for?’

You’ll receive bonus points if you live in a tiny, modern, poorly built flat with thin walls and absolutely no privacy but you’ll lose those points if you keep a pet or complain about absolutely anything.

If you spend too much on clothes or shoes your rating will go down and saving money will mark you out as guilty of something or other and you won’t be able to hire a car, get a promotion at work, use a gym or get your children into a school with textbooks.

If you are a lot of trouble you’ll find that your internet speeds will slow to a crawl and if you have your own business and talk back to council officials you won’t get any help with planning problems or be able to obtain any official government contracts.

If you don’t dress appropriately when out in public or are spotted crossing the road when the lights are against you then you’ll be photographed and your picture displayed. If you have a row with a neighbour then your pictures will be put on a billboard near your home and you’ll be shamed. If you are late with your taxes you’ll be marked down for regular audits, your business will be inspected once a week and your picture will appear on a shame board on the internet. You’ll find it impossible to obtain licences, permits and loans you might need.

In restaurants the cameras will study your manners and your eating habits and the amount of food you leave on the plate – all likely to damage your social credit rating.

Snitches, sneaks, police officers and over-compliant government employees will mark you down for any sin of commission or omission.

And by now you probably think I’m making this up and I wish I were but I’m not. We’re not talking about the far distant future. We’re talking about the very new future.

You’ll receive points if you give blood, lose points if you associate with people with low scores, be punished if you spend frivolously or don’t praise the Government on social media.

Eating meat or indulging in unsuitable activities will result in a severe points loss, as will putting too much refuse into public bins. Facial recognition cameras in bins will see and punish you and reduce food credit.

Not having the correct number of children, being overweight and owning land will result in a loss of social credit points. In the UK the Office for National Statistics has already claimed that childless women will be a burden on the state because they’ll have no one to look after them).

Not having a smart meter will result in a loss of points as will any example of civil disobedience. Chronic sickness, mental illness, being old and being disabled will lose you points as will being arrested (it doesn’t matter whether you are found guilty).

Having too big a carbon footprint, being middle class or white or asking too many questions will all result in a loss of points as will being too protective of your family.

You’ll lose social credit points if you cause some `identity harm’, say something that makes someone feel uncomfortable about who they are, where they are from or what they look like – or don’t say something that causes them to feel good.

If you show any micro-aggression, exhibit white privilege or stir up hatred you’ll be punished. If you behave in a threatening or abusing or insulting manner you will be in trouble as you will if you communicate threatening abusive or insulting material to another person.

Your intention will be irrelevant. The complainant only has to say he was hurt. Writers, actors or film or stage directors could be charged if anyone finds any of their material offensive. Shakespearean plays won’t appear much in the future.

You probably think I’m really kidding now. If you do just check out what is happening in Scotland.

In the UK, the police now define a crime or incident as hateful based on the perception of the victim (and not on the intent of the offender).

Naturally, the police and politicians have been encouraging citizens to snitch on those breaking laws.

You can get into serious trouble for playing loud music or having trees in your garden. Trees are bad because they may interfere with communications and have no practical purpose. There will be no place for aesthetics or nature in the New World Order.

What else will be bad?

Eating on public transport, missing a medical appointment, parking in the wrong place, missing a job interview and jaywalking will all lose your points and make your life more difficult.

If you think I’ve gone mad you should know that cybersecurity experts have discovered that 32% of adults between 25 and 34 in 21 countries (a total of 10,000 individuals) have already had difficulty getting a mortgage or loan because of their social media activity.

So far around 4.5 billion people around the world use the internet and most have social media accounts.

A fairly scary survey found that two thirds of individuals are willing to share information about themselves or others to get a shopping discount while half are willing to do so if it helps them skip queues at airports. One in two individuals say they are happy for the government to monitor everyone’s social media behaviour if it means keeping the public safe.

Of course, it will be impossible to find out what your social credit score is, to find out exactly how scores are made up or to correct any error. And scores will be changed in real time. So you could join a queue thinking you are entitled to hire a car or board a train and find, when you get to the front of the queue that your rating has changed and you can’t do either of those things.

Governments, big companies and local authorities are already gathering information about you from facial recognition cameras, biometric studies at airports, drones, surveillance planes and social media. This is the technocratic state in full fly. Using a silly name or avatar on social media will provide you with absolutely no protection. They know exactly who stinkyfeet of Weymouth really is and they know the name, address and inside leg measurement of bumfluff from Colorado.

You can forget about privacy, freedom or rights.

We will soon all be living in China.

If one person in a family breaks the law, the whole family will be punished.

Taking an active part in a religious ceremony will result in punishment. You may, for example, be sent to an education and training centre where the inmates study political propaganda.

Every time you give information on line they are storing up information about you, your views, your personality and so on.

And there are so, so many ways in which your social credit score can be adversely affected.

If you drop rubbish in a public place you will be shamed and will lose points. In Thailand, tourists who drop rubbish in a national park must give their name and address. If they leave rubbish behind they are in trouble.

All this is known as social engineering. It’s something politicians have been trying to do for many years since, when it works, which it does, it gives them complete control over the population. There is no longer any need to worry about opposition or criticism.

In China, citizens who do `good’ things for the State and their community are rewarded by having their photographs and names on a local wall. This is exactly what I remember seeing in East Germany in the 1970s. And back then people vied with one another to please the State and win a place on the wall.

So, again, if you want to know the sort of society you and your children will live in then look at China now where what people do, say and think is being monitored.

But our future won’t be so free and easy as life in China is at the moment.

We are moving rapidly into a dystopian, digital dictatorship.

Good behaviour will be rewarded and bad behaviour punished. But who defines what is good and what is bad?

Geotracking is the new normal now. Your financial records are combined with your criminal record, academic record, medical record and shopping patterns. They’re keeping an eye on the type of friends you have, the videos you watch, the people you date or marry or meet.

This is Big Brother on speed

In the brave new world, those with a low credit score won’t be able to move an inch.

People who speak out about corruption or who question the propaganda will be punished. If they are fined then their fine will be higher because they are seen as bad people.

And it’s already all happening.

Computer games are training us for our future.

the author is banned in China because he wrote a column for a Chinese newspaper which was considered unacceptable. His books in Chinese were instantly removed from sale.

I leave you with this fact.

There are public loos in China which won’t let you in without first checking your face and identifying you. Only then will the machine dispense the small quantity of loo paper you are allowed.

How many sheets will you be allowed if you have a low credit score? Two? One? None at all?

You may be smiling now.

But see if you’re still smiling in twelve months’ time.

Vernon Coleman’s book Endgame: The Hidden Agenda 21 explains how we got here and where the conspirators are taking us. If you want the truth about the past, present and future then read Endgame.

The Kids Online Safety Act Is A Heavy-Handed Plan To Force Platforms To Spy On Children

Putting children under surveillance and limiting their access to information doesn’t make them safer — in fact, research suggests just the opposite. Unfortunately those tactics are the ones endorsed by the Kids Online Safety Act of 2022 (KOSA), introduced by Sens. Blumenthal and Blackburn. The bill deserves credit for attempting to improve online data privacy for young people, and for attempting to update 1998’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA). But its plan to require surveillance and censorship of anyone under sixteen would greatly endanger the rights, and safety, of young people online.

KOSA would require the following:

  • A new legal duty for platforms to prevent certain harms: KOSA outlines a wide collection of content that platforms can be sued for if young people encounter it, including “promotion of self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, and other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor.”
  • Compel platforms to provide data to researchers
  • An elaborate age-verification system, likely run by a third-party provider
  • Parental controls, turned on and set to their highest settings, to block or filter a wide array of content

There are numerous concerns with this plan. The parental controls would in effect require a vast number of online platforms to create systems for parents to spy on — and control — the conversations young people are able to have online, and require those systems be turned on by default. It would also likely result in further tracking of all users.

Data collection is a scourge for every internet user, regardless of age.

And in order to avoid liability for causing the listed harms, nearly every online platform would hide or remove huge swaths of content. And because each of the listed areas of concern involves significant gray areas, the platforms will over-censor to attempt to steer clear of the new liability risks.

These requirements would be applied far more broadly than the law KOSA hopes to update, COPPA. Whereas COPPA applies to anyone under thirteen, KOSA would apply to anyone under sixteen — an age group that child rights organizations agree have a greater need for privacy and independence than younger teens and kids. And in contrast to COPPA’s age self-verification scheme, KOSA would authorize a federal study of “the most technologically feasible options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.”

Age verification systems are troubling — requiring such systems could hand over significant power, and private data, to third-party identity verification companies like Clear or ID.me. Additionally, such a system would likely lead platforms to set up elaborate age-verification systems for everyone, meaning that all users would have to submit personal data. 

Lastly, KOSA’s incredibly broad definition of a covered platform would include any “commercial software application or electronic service that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor.”

That would likely encompass everything from Apple’s iMessage and Signal to web browsers, email applications and VPN software, as well as platforms like Facebook and TikTok — platforms with wildly different user bases and uses.

It’s also unclear how deep into the ‘tech stack’ such a requirement would reach – web hosts or domain registries likely aren’t the intended platforms for KOSA, but depending on interpretation, could be subject to its requirements.

And, the bill raises concerns about how providers of end-to-end encrypted messaging platforms like iMessage, Signal, and WhatsApp would interpret their duty to monitor minors’ communications, with the potential that companies will simply compromise encryption to avoid litigation.

Censorship Isn’t The Answer

KOSA would force sites to use filters to block content — filters that we’ve seen, time and time again, fail to properly distinguish“good” speech from “bad” speech. The types of content targeted by KOSA are complex, and often dangerous — but discussing them is not bad by default.

It’s very hard to differentiate between minors having discussions about these topics in a way that encourages them, as opposed to a way that discourages them. Under this bill, all discussion and viewing of these topics by minors should be blocked.

The law requires platforms to ban the potentially infinite category of “other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor.

Research already exists showing bans like these don’t work: when Tumblr banned discussions of anorexia, it discovered that the keywords used in pro-anorexia content were the same ones used to discourage anorexia. Other research has shown that bans like these actually make the content easier to find by forcing people to create new keywords to discuss it (for example, “thinspiration” became “thynsperation”). 

The law also requires platforms to ban the potentially infinite category of “other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor.” As we’ve seen in the past, whenever the legality of material is up for interpretation, it is far more likely to be banned outright, leaving huge holes in what information is accessible online. The law would seriously endanger access to information to teenagers, who may want to explore ideas without their parents knowledge or approval.

For example, they might have questions about sexual health that they do not feel safe asking their parents about, or they may want to help a friend with an eating disorder or a substance abuse problem. (Research has shown that a large majority of young people have used the internet for health-related research.)

KOSA would allow individual state attorneys general to bring actions against platforms when the state’s residents are “threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a practice that violates this Act.” This leaves it up to individual state attorneys general to decide what topics pose a risk to the physical and mental health of a minor. A co-author of this bill, Sen. Blackburn of Tennessee, has referred to education about race discrimination as “dangerous for kids.” Many states have agreed, and recently moved to limit public education about the history of racegender, and sexuality discrimination.

Recently, Texas’ governor directed the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate gender affirming care as child abuse. KOSA would empower the Texas attorney general to define material that is harmful to children, and the current position of the state would include resources for trans youth. This would allow the state to force online services to remove and block access to that material everywhere — not only Texas. That’s not to mention the frequent conflation by tech platforms of LGBTQ content with dangerous “sexually explicit” material. KOSA could result in loss of access to information that a vast majority of people would agree is not dangerous, but is under political attack. 

Surveillance Isn’t The Answer

Some legitimate concerns are driving KOSA. Data collection is a scourge for every internet user, regardless of age. Invasive tracking of young people by online platforms is particularly pernicious — EFF has long pushed back against remote proctoring, for example. 

But the answer to our lack of privacy isn’t more tracking. Despite the growing ubiquity of technology to make it easy, surveillance of young people is actually bad for them, even in the healthiest household, and is not a solution to helping young people navigate the internet. Parents have an interest in deciding what their children can view online, but no one could argue that this interest is the same if a child is five or fifteen.

KOSA would put all children under sixteen in the same group, and require that specific types of content be hidden from them, and that other content be tracked and logged by parental tools. This would force platforms to more closely watch what all users do. 

KOSA’s parental controls would give parents, by default, access to monitor and control a young person’s online use. While a tool like Apple’s Screen Time allows parents to restrict access to certain apps, or limit their usage to certain times, platforms would need to do much more under KOSA.

They would have to offer parents the ability to modify the results of any algorithmic recommendation system, “including the right to opt-out or down-rank types or categories of recommendations,” effectively deciding for young people what they see – or don’t see – online. It would also give parents the ability to delete their child’s account entirely if they’re unhappy with their use of the platform. 

The answer to our lack of privacy isn’t more tracking. 

The bill tackles algorithmic systems by requiring that platforms provide “an overview of how algorithmic recommendation systems are used …to provide information to users of the platform who are minors, including how such systems use personal data belonging to minors.” Transparency about how a platform’s algorithms work, and tools to allow users to open up and create their own feeds, are critical for wider understanding of algorithmic curation, the kind of content it can incentivize, and the consequences it can have.

EFF has also supported giving users more control over the content they see online. But KOSA requires that parents be able to opt-out or down-rank types or categories of recommendations, without the consent or knowledge of the user, including teenage users.

Lastly, under KOSA, platforms would be required to prevent patterns of use that indicate addiction, and to offer parents the ability to limit features that “increase, sustain, or extend use of the covered platform by a minor, such as automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent on the platform, and notifications.” While minimizing dark patterns that can trick users into giving up personal information is a laudable goal, determining what features “cause addiction” is highly fraught.

If a sixteen year-old spends three hours a day on Discord working through schoolwork or discussing music with their friends, would that qualify as “addictive” behavior? KOSA would likely cover features as different as Netflix’s auto-playing of episodes and iMessage’s new message notifications. Putting these features together under the heading of “addictive” misunderstands which dark patterns actually harm users, including young people.

EFF has long supported comprehensive data privacy legislation for all users. But the Kids Online Safety Act would not protect the privacy of children or adults. It is a heavy-handed plan to force technology companies to spy on young people and stop them from accessing content that is “not in their best interest,” as defined by the government, and interpreted by tech platforms. 

Source: EFF.org

Be skeptical about media coverage of Ukraine

If you have been monitoring the coverage of the conflict in Ukraine, it is amply clear that a narrative is being pushed.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is being compared to Winston Churchill during World War II; he is leading his people during perilous times to become an inspiring figure. He refused a safe passage offer from the U.S. with the quip: “I need ammunition, not a ride”. He streams videos from the deserted streets of Ukraine and posts photos with his cabinet. Photos of Zelenskyy surface in military gear on the battlefront. To sum it up, Zelensky is being portrayed as Churchill, Rambo and social media influencers all rolled into one. 

Not to be left behind, a former Miss Ukraine, and the First Lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelensky, reportedly joined the army. There are teary moments of Ukrainian soldiers bidding farewell to their families and children in the streets waving at them as they depart for war. There were photos of Russian soldiers holding Ukrainian girls as hostages. We see harrowing footage of injured Ukrainian children, slain Ukrainian soldiers, and explosions. We see courage as a brave Ukrainian child stands up to a Russian soldier, almost ordering him to leave her country.

It is all so poignant and inspiring until you fact-check the images.

The photos of Zelensky in military gear were from February 11, 2021, and April 9, 2021.  The photo of the Russian soldier holding Ukrainian girls at gunpoint was a 2005 photo from the West Bank. Neither the first lady of Ukraine nor the former Miss Ukraine is joining the armed forces. The teary farewell of Ukrainian soldiers amidst the invasion was actually a photo of the happy homecoming moment of U.S. Marines. Ukrainian children sending off to the army for war with Russia was an old image from 2016. Then there is a video that shows a young Ukrainian girl standing up to a Russian soldier who was shot in 2012 in the West Bank. A video from Syria was falsely shared as a Russian attack on Ukraine. A heartbreaking photo of an injured child from the Syrian war was shared as the victim of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. A poignant moment from the movie was shared as scenes from battle-torn Ukraine.

Such instances are numerous and all show the Ukrainian side in good light which makes it clear who the creators are.

They prove the adage that truth is the first casualty of war. 

It is also interesting to note that Zelenskyy has been seen on deserted dark streets of Ukraine or in indoor locations but never in public places in Ukraine where the date can be verified. Now there is a possibility that he remains behind closed doors for security reasons. 

An amazing 91 percent of Ukrainians approve of Zelenskyy’s performance. This is good news for Zelenskyy who was struggling with just 28 percent of public approval after the pandemic. 

The videos keep flooding the zone and the media dutifully reports them. Yesterday, a moving video appears to show a captured Russian soldier breaking down in tears as he sips tea and Ukrainians call his mother to tell her he’s O.K.

Even news organizations such as BBC use mobile phone footage whose authenticity they cannot verify. They introduce it with a disclaimer but the question remains why to show it if it cannot be verified.

Let’s have a look at Zelenskyy and his tenure in office so far, before the war broke.

Zelenskyy won the presidential election in 2019 after much of his campaign was allegedly bankrolled by one of Ukraine’s richest — and most corrupt — oligarchs, Igor Kolomoisky.

Corruption remains rampant and deep-rooted in Ukraine. There are allegations that new anti-oligarch laws were used to restrict the activities of oligarchs who do not support Zelenskyy. Corruption charges aimed at Zelenskyy’s main rival, Petro Poroshenko, his predecessor as president, are regarded as politically motivated by observers. There has been an allegation of considerable corruption and cronyism.

During recent months there has been a surge in attempts by Zelenskyy to control the media. This included pressure on publication owners, demands for political talk shows, attempts to cancel the screening of a documentary film, and threats of criminal prosecution against media outlets and journalists. 

Over the years, neo-Nazism has earned the Ukrainian government’s implicit endorsement. The Ukrainian National Guard is already home to the Azov Battalion that has neo-Nazi leanings. The logo of the Azov Battalion comprising of two neo-Nazi emblems — the Wolfsangel and the Sonnenrad. The National Guard of Ukraine has shared a video on its Twitter account that shows Azov fighters greasing bullets with pig fat, ostensibly to be used against Muslim Chechens deployed to their country as Russia steps up its military assault on Ukraine.

Following Russia’s invasion, there have been reports of the Ukrainian government using citizens as human shields

Indian students described the increasingly violent, antagonistic, and racist behavior meted out to them by Ukrainian authorities at the borders. There have also been charges of racism.  African, Asian and Caribbean people, many of whom are students, have shared reports and footage of themselves being prevented from leaving the country owing to their race.

We must remember that those cheering the Ukrainian regime are still claiming that President Trump colluded with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin to rig the 206 elections and that the protests on Jan. 6, 2020 that went overboard were an insurrection. They now baselessly blame Trump for this conflict because he is ‘weakening NATO’. The long-term goal is, was, and will always remain to prevent Trump from winning the White House in 2024.

Beyond the petty Democrat politics, we must obviously sympathize with regular Ukrainians. Their suffering is unfathomable. They have lost their loved ones, their homes, their places of work, source of income, and hope. They are living in fear. Families have been torn apart. Some will have to live as refugees in neighboring nations. They may suffer from considerable PTSD apart from physical impairments.

So what do we make of the Ukrainian regime and President Zelenskyy? Could the conflict have transformed him into a different man or is this all a charade?

Let the conflict end or recede, let those affected by the conflict be interviewed. Let historians and documentarians gather information from all sides. Let everything be judged dispassionately and objectively. Only then can we pass a verdict. The media and the public must restrain the urge to confer members of the Ukrainian regime with superlative epithets merely based on social media posts or poignant utterances from a former actor.

Global powers must be cautious while arming the Ukrainian without supervision. These arms could be misused or sold after the conflict is over and the millions may end up in personal accounts. Aid has to be sent and aid workers must make sure that the aid reaches the people directly and is not siphoned off by middlemen.

For every bit of information we receive from any of the media, including social media, we have to have a healthy amount of skepticism but an open mind while we hope for peace.

The Age Of Intolerance: Cancel Culture’s War On Free Speech

“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.” — George Carlin

Cancel culture — political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance — has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance, policed by techno-censors, social media bullies, and government watchdogs.

the age of intolerance cancel culture’s war on free speech

Everything is now fair game for censorship if it can be construed as hateful, hurtful, bigoted or offensive provided that it runs counter to the established viewpoint.

In this way, the most controversial issues of our day — race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, science, health, government corruption, police brutality, etc. — have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom of speech but only when it favors the views and positions they support.

Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

This tendency to censor, silence, delete, label as “hateful,” and demonize viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite is being embraced with a near-fanatical zealotry by a cult-like establishment that values conformity and group-think over individuality.

For instance, are you skeptical about the efficacy of the COVID-19 jabs? Do you have concerns about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election? Do you subscribe to religious beliefs that shape your views on sexuality, marriage and gender? Do you, deliberately or inadvertently, engage in misgendering (identifying a person’s gender incorrectly) or deadnaming (using the wrong pronouns or birth name for a transgender person)?

Say yes to any of those questions and then dare to voice those views in anything louder than a whisper and you might find yourself suspended on Twitter, shut out of Facebook, and banned across various social media platforms.

This authoritarian intolerance masquerading as tolerance, civility and love (what comedian George Carlin referred to as “fascism pretending to be manners”) is the end result of a politically correct culture that has become radicalized, institutionalized and tyrannical.

Putin: Wokeness is ‘Reversed Discrimination’ and a ‘Crime Against Humanity’.

In the past few years, for example, prominent social media voices have been censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that were deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

Most recently, Twitter suspended conservative podcaster Matt Walsh for violating its hate speech policy by sharing his views about transgendered individuals. “The greatest female Jeopardy champion of all time is a man. The top female college swimmer is a man. The first female four star admiral in the Public Health Service is a man. Men have dominated female high school track and the female MMA circuit. The patriarchy wins in the end,” Walsh tweeted on Dec. 30, 2021.

J.K. Rowling, author of the popular Harry Potter series, has found herself denounced as transphobic and widely shunned for daring to criticize efforts by transgender activists to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender. Rowling’s essay explaining her views is a powerful, articulate, well-researched piece that not only stresses the importance of free speech and women’s rights while denouncing efforts by trans activists to demonize those who subscribe to “wrongthink,” but also recognizes that while the struggle over gender dysmorphia is real, concerns about safeguarding natal women and girls from abuse are also legitimate.

Ironically enough, Rowling’s shunning included literal book burning. Yet as Ray Bradbury once warned, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Indeed, the First Amendment is going up in flames before our eyes, but those first sparks were lit long ago and have been fed by intolerance all along the political spectrum.

Consider some of the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.

Offensive, politically incorrect and “unsafe” speech: Political correctness has resulted in the chilling of free speech and a growing hostility to those who exercise their rights to speak freely. Where this has become painfully evident is on college campuses, which have become hotbeds of student-led censorship, trigger warningsmicroaggressions, and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.

Bullying, intimidating speech: Warning that “school bullies become tomorrow’s hate crimes defendants,” the Justice Department has led the way in urging schools to curtail bullying, going so far as to classify “teasing” as a form of “bullying,” and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.”

Hateful speech: Hate speech—speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation—is the primary candidate for online censorship. Corporate internet giants Google, Twitter and Facebook continue to re-define what kinds of speech will be permitted online and what will be deleted.

Dangerous, anti-government speech: As part of its ongoing war on “extremism,” the government has partnered with the tech industry to counter online “propaganda” by terrorists hoping to recruit support or plan attacks. In this way, anyone who criticizes the government online can be considered an extremist and will have their content reported to government agencies for further investigation or deleted. In fact, the Justice Department is planning to form a new domestic terrorism unit to ferret out individuals “who seek to commit violent criminal acts in furtherance of domestic social or political goals.” What this will mean is more surveillance, more pre-crime programs, and more targeting of individuals whose speech may qualify as “dangerous.”

The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state.

Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use.

The end result is mind control and a sleepwalking populace.

In totalitarian regimes — a.k.a. police states — where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.

In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned — discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred — inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

The social shunning favored by activists and corporations borrows heavily from the mind control tactics used by authoritarian cults as a means of controlling its members. As Dr. Steven Hassan writes in Psychology Today:

“By ordering members to be cut off, they can no longer participate. Information and sharing of thoughts, feelings, and experiences are stifled. Thought-stopping and use of loaded terms keep a person constrained into a black-and-white, all-or-nothing world. This controls members through fear and guilt.”

This mind control can take many forms, but the end result is an enslaved, compliant populace incapable of challenging tyranny.

As Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry, one that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”

The problem as I see it is that we’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And we’ve bought into the idea that we need the government and its corporate partners to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean. The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.

In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears.

As Nat Hentoff, that inveterate champion of the First Amendment, once observed, “The quintessential difference between a free nation, as we profess to be, and a totalitarian state, is that here everyone, including a foe of democracy, has the right to speak his mind.”

What this means is opening the door to more speech not less, even if that speech is offensive to some.

Understanding that freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society, James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one — even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints — would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

We haven’t done ourselves — or the nation — any favors by becoming so fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful or closed-minded that we’ve eliminated words, phrases and symbols from public discourse.

We have allowed our fears — fear for our safety, fear of each other, fear of being labeled racist or hateful or prejudiced, etc. — to trump our freedom of speech and muzzle us far more effectively than any government edict could.

Ultimately the war on free speech — and that’s exactly what it is: a war being waged by Americans against other Americans — is a war that is driven by fear.

By bottling up dissent, we have created a pressure cooker of stifled misery and discontent that is now bubbling over and fomenting even more hate, distrust and paranoia among portions of the populace.

By muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve to release the pressure, frustration builds, anger grows, and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

Be warned: whatever we tolerate now — whatever we turn a blind eye to — whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

Eventually, “we the people” will be the ones in the crosshairs.

At some point or another, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes “hate” or “extremism, “we the people” might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.

When that time comes, there may be no one left to speak out or speak up in our defense.

After all, it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth. Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

We are on a fast-moving trajectory.

In other words, whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now, for the sake of the greater good or because you like or trust those in charge, will eventually be abused and used against you by tyrants of your own making.

This is the tyranny of the majority against the minority marching in lockstep with technofascism.

If Americans don’t vociferously defend the right of a minority of one to subscribe to, let alone voice, ideas and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant or merely different, then we’re going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt in, opt out, or forge our own paths as individuals).

No matter what our numbers might be, no matter what our views might be, no matter what party we might belong to, it will not be long before “we the people” constitute a powerless minority in the eyes of a power-fueled fascist state driven to maintain its power at all costs.

We are almost at that point now.

Free speech is no longer free.

On paper — at least according to the U.S. Constitution — we are technically free to speak.

In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official — or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube — may allow.

The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

Orwell intended 1984 as a warning. Instead, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist and obedient to Big Brother.

The police state could not ask for a better citizenry than one that carries out its own censorship, spying and policing.