https://brownstone.org/articles/free-speech-on-trial/
Free Speech on Trial
In a lifetime of observing policy controversies and court cases, we’ve never witnessed anything as crucial to the future of the idea of freedom itself compared with what will transpire on March 18, 2024. On that day, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Murthy v. Missouri concerning whether the government can force or nudge private companies to censor users on behalf of regime priorities.
The evidence that they have been doing so is overwhelming. That’s why the 5th Circuit issued an emergency injunction to stop the practice on grounds that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The censorship industrial complex is working right now and hourly to delete free speech in America. That injunction was stayed pending a review by the highest court.
The case itself hasn’t even gone to court. This decision is only about the injunction itself, which was issued based on the alarming results of discovery alone. Essentially, the lower court is screaming “This must stop.” The Supreme Court is trying to assess whether the violations of liberty are extreme enough to justify a pre-trial intervention now.
A positive ruling for the plaintiffs doesn’t solve every problem but at least it will mean that freedom still stands a chance in this country. A ruling for the defense, which is essentially the government itself, will give license to every federal agency – including those that operate in secret like the FBI and CIA – to threaten every social media and media company in this country to delete any and all content that runs contrary to the approved narrative.
There will be celebration in Washington if this happens. On the other hand, there will be tears if the court decides for the defense. It could be that the court will take an in-between position, refusing to let the injunction go ahead and promising some possible decision at a later date pending trial. That would be a disaster because it could mean three or more years of full censorship pending an appeal of whatever the outcome of the trial is.
Free speech is everything. If we don’t have that, we have nothing and freedom is toast. All other problems pale in comparison. There are plenty of them, from healthcare to immigration but if we don’t have free speech, we cannot get the truth out about any of them. The censorship industrial complex is wholly dedicated to making sure that we have no debates at all and that dissident voices are not even heard.
As it is, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook – and many more besides – already heavily restrict speech. They work in cooperation with government and those tasked by government to do elite bidding. We know this for a fact.
When Elon Musk took over Twitter, he discovered a vast censorship machine operating on behalf of the FBI and other agencies. Millions of posts were being taken down along with users. He has done his best to rip out the guts of this borg. Doing so entirely changed the character of the site. It became useful again.
Not even the scale of the problem is widely understood. Usually people say that free speech is necessary to protect minority opinions. In this case, the numbers don’t matter to the censors. You could have 90% of users trying to advance an idea and still have it censored. This is what the old Twitter did. It was daily and hourly attacking the company’s user base. This was their job, no matter how much it contradicts the whole point of social media.
Brownstone is predictably throttled by all these companies but it is not just about us. It is about everyone who disagrees with the Davos “Great Reset” agenda. This could pertain to EVs, gender transitions, lockdowns, immigration, or anything else. Even now, the Google Artificial Intelligence engine extols the glories of lockdowns, masking, and mass injections while completely ignoring contrary science. This is how they want things to be. Google’s search engine is no better. It might as well be a federal agency.
The Justices hearing the case will be in an awkward position. My guess is that none of them even know that this was going on to the extent it is. They will likely be shocked when they look at the evidence proving that there is a trillion-dollar industry in full operation that has massively distorted the public mind. Every federal agency is involved, deeply embedded in the operations of all media companies and digital technology, which in turn requires universal surveillance and persecution of contrary voices.
Until just a few years ago, this entire industry – which involves federal agencies, universities, nonprofits, shadow companies, bogus fact-checks, and every manner of spook-operated front companies – was not known to exist. Now that we know, we are shocked by the extent of it. It has invaded the whole of our lives to the point that we cannot tell the real news from that which is fed to us by intelligence agencies. Even worse, we’ve come to expect that most of what passes for approved opinion is flat-out false.
The Justices will discover this truth. They will likely be astonished. But they will also be taken aback by how integral to our lives it has become. As it turns out, the federal government for nearly a decade has placed a very high priority on curating the public mind, lying at every turn for its own benefit and that of its industrial partners.
Everyone in the old Soviet Union knew for sure that Pravda spoke for the Communist Party. But do people understand that their Google search results and Facebook timelines are no better? It’s not clear whether and to what extent people do understand this but it is our reality.
Will the Justices really be willing to pull the plug on the entire machinery? Doing that would be more disruptive of an established interest group than anything the court has done in many years or even ever. It would fundamentally change the way our technologies work. It would be devastating to federal agencies. Policing such a new system called free speech would be another matter entirely. It would mean that thousands of people would suddenly have nothing to do. That would be wonderful, but would it happen?
As I say, censorship is now an entire global industry. It involves the world’s most powerful foundations, governments, universities, and influencers. It seems like everyone wants a part in crushing what they called “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “malinformation,” which is true information that they don’t want out. We are surrounded by this machinery of control and yet most people have no clue.
Every federal agency at this point has taken it upon themselves to cajole every information provider into rigging the system so that only one perspective gets out. This has a massive impact on public opinions.
As an example, four years ago, I wrote an article that accidentally made it through the censors and I watched as millions read my piece. Even now, I hear about it at cocktail parties coming from total strangers who don’t know that I’m the author. Nothing like that has happened since that magical day. Most of my writing goes into a dark hole, and this is despite writing daily for the 4th largest newspaper and having access to a huge public forum at Brownstone. People without such access do not stand a chance. Their posts on Facebook are disappeared the instant they post, while YouTube slams their content as contrary to community standards, with no other explanation.
Self-censorship has become the habitual practice of the intellectual class. Otherwise you only beat your head up against the wall and make yourself a target. Minute-by-minute in real time, public opinion is being shaped by this wicked industry, which dramatically distorts political outcomes.
As I say, this is surely the most important issue we face. A decision by the Supreme Court to let this go on – seeing no real issue here – will lead straight to our doom and the death of freedom itself.
There’s an additional problem that is very serious. These days, there is a massive race on to program censorship into the algorithms themselves so that no one is actually doing it, so that there cannot be any real defendants in a case against them. AI will soon be running everything so that Google and Facebook etc can simply say that their machine learning is doing the dirty work.
Perhaps one of the reasons AI has hit us with such a rush is precisely because of this case before the court. The deep state and its industrial partners are not going to give up easily. Everything depends on their victory over free speech, so far as they are concerned.
This is very worrisome, which is why one should hope for a sweeping statement by the Supreme Court that reaffirms the fundamental American commitment to have government completely out of the business of manipulating public opinion through curating what information you see and read and what you do not see and read.
It’s tragic that such a fundamental human right should so heavily depend on the majority decision of this one body. It’s not supposed to work this way. The First Amendment is supposed to be law but these days, the government has built an entire empire around the idea that it simply does not matter. The job of the Supreme Court is to remind our overlords that the people are not merely putty in the hands of deep state agents. We have fundamental rights that cannot be abridged.
There is a rally scheduled outside the court on March 18th, with many speakers making themselves available to the press. Note the sponsoring organizations: these are the freedom fighters in America today. You are welcome to join us.
It won’t sway the court, of course. And the crowds will surely be thinner than they otherwise would be given how much success the censorship industry already enjoys. Still, it is worth a shot.
Truly, we should all shudder to think of the future of American freedom in absence of a decisive statement by the court on behalf of the basic liberty the Framers intended be protected for everyone.
....
https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/85821/fake-terrorism-and-the.html
FAKE TERRORISM AND THE GENOCIDE AGENDA
The criminocracy is in danger of losing its carefully-constructed shield of invisibilty as it accelerates its deranged bid for total and permanent global control.
It is therefore obliged to ramp up its attacks on those who dare expose its existence, its crimes and its lies.
While Julian Assange is the most famous victim of its war on real journalism, another important case is that of Richard D. Hall.
Iain Davis writes: “UK independent journalist, researcher and documentary filmmaker Richard D. Hall faces conviction, sizeable damages and an injunction that could potentially end his career and his livelihood.
“The High Court of Justice has denied Hall the opportunity to present any kind of meaningful defence. This travesty of justice has potential implications, not just for Richard D. Hall, but for all journalists who dare to question power”.
The overall situation is that Hall is being sued by two alleged victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena “bombing”, which he convincingly argues was nothing of the sort, but a manufactured psy-ops.
In a recent video, Hall describes in detail the issues involved and wonders whether the case against him is really being instigated by the alleged victims or by other, hidden, forces.
He mentions in particular Marianna Spring, the BBC’s first ever “disinformation specialist and social media correspondent”, who has been actively seeking to discredit his work.
Kit Klarenberg writes on The Grayzone site that there are “troubling questions” about Spring, who appeared out of nowhere to take up the newly-created thought-police post in March 2020, at the tender age of 24.
She played a leading role in “diminishing and discrediting sizable anti-lockdown protests that engulfed the streets of central London” and depicted them as “comprised almost entirely of fringe lunatics”, he writes.
Klarenberg points to Spring’s links with the extremely dodgy “think tank” the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which I described in this recent article.
As I explained, the ISD was co-founded by ardent Zionist George Weidenfeld and enjoys an “institutional partnership” with the even more ardently pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League.
A 2022 episode of the BBC’s Panorama programme presented by Spring featured ISD boss Sasha Havlicek discussing “how and why people come to believe that terror attacks are hoaxes”.
Hall’s admirable forensic investigation into the Manchester event was presented as evidence of a supposed “mainstreaming of extremism, hatred and conspiracy”, with Spring and Havlicek stressing “the impact these conspiracy theories have on the survivors of terror attacks”.
The ISD’s Zionist affiliations are particularly pertinent here, since the Manchester “bombing” is officially regarded as having been the work of “Islamic extremists”.
Wikipedia describes it as “the deadliest act of terrorism and the first suicide bombing in the United Kingdom since the 7 July 2005 London bombings”, also blamed on “Islamist terrorists”.
The same familiar enemy is said to have been behind pretty much every big “terrorist” attack of the 21st century, starting with 9/11, and pesky “conspiracy theorists” have been asking questions about all of them.
There is certainly historical evidence to suggest that terror attacks are often not what they appear to be.
Gianfranco Sanguinetti wrote in 1980: “I have never said that the secret services were behind every single attack, given that these days even a Molotov cocktail or a workplace sabotage are considered to be ‘attacks’: but I have said, and I have been saying for nearly ten years now, that all spectacular acts of terrorism are either remote-controlled, or directly carried out, by our secret services”.
He was referring to the terrorist attacks, in Italy and across Europe, which are now known to have been co-ordinated by NATO under what is often termed Operation Gladio.
The aim of that wave of killing – which was not faked but very real – was seemingly to push scared populations into the arms of the security state and to discredit radical groups falsely accused of being responsible.
The first of these aims is most likely still true today – who, since 2020, can seriously doubt that deliberate fearmongering plays an important part in keeping populations under control?
But the second aim must be slightly different now, because the “terrorists” involved are said to be “Islamist”.
Why would the system feel the burning need, one might ask, to create fake or false-flag events to discredit Islamist groups that do not present an obvious domestic political threat to the governments of the various countries targeted?
The answer, I suspect, lies in the way in which our political institutions have been systematically captured by elements favourable to, and often funded by, Israel – a reality that has become all too obvious since the onslaught against Gaza began.
We might also consider a document published by Jerusalem Summit nearly 20 years ago. The Acorn reported in 2016 that the leadership of this Zionist organisation included Daniel Pipes, the pro-Israel and anti-Islam US commentator, and Britain’s Baroness Cox, described by Craig Murray in 2014 as “a prominent supporter of organisations which actively and openly promote the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Gaza”.
The document in question envisages “relocation” of Palestinians from their homes in Israeli-controlled territory “to allow them to build a new life for themselves and their families in countries preferably, but not necessarily exclusively, with similar religious and socio-cultural conditions”.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been in the limelight in recent months, accusing Israel of crimes against humanity and, in turn, being depicted as a tool of Hamas by Israel and its supporters.
Interestingly, the archived Jerusalem Summit document declares that “the dissolution of UNRWA is an essential prerequisite for any comprehensive, durable solution of the Palestinian issue”.
Also, crucially in the context of this article, it states: “The de-legitimization of the Palestinian narrative becomes a vital prerequisite to any comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian issue”.
How exactly could that “narrative” be delegitimized – thus allowing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, by whatever means necessary, to go ahead without too much global opposition?
One way would be to associate Palestinians, in the minds of the international public, with terrorists who have been attacking their own communities.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long been trying to make this link, claiming back in 2014: “ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree. When it comes to their ultimate goals, Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is Hamas. And what they share in common, all militant Islamists share in common”.
He made the same claim in October 2023, declaring: “We have always known what Hamas is. Now the whole world knows. Hamas is ISIS… We will defeat [Hamas] precisely as the enlightened world defeated ISIS”.
With many people pointing out that Hamas was created and propped up by Israel itself, insisting that ISIS is “a US-Israeli creation” and wondering if the October 7 attacks were a false-flag event, a disconcerting possibility emerges.
Could it be that all or most of the big “Islamist” terror attacks of the first two decades of this century were fake or false-flag events, designed to whip up hatred and fear of Muslims and thus of Palestinians, to demonise and dehumanise them in order to achieve the “de-legitimization” of their cause, as recommended by Jerusalem Summit?
Was this all part of a long-term plan to pave the way for the ethnic cleansing horrors that we have seen unfolding in Gaza since October 2023?
If so, is this why the Israel-linked IDS is so keen, through its boss Havlicek and her sidekick Spring, to shut down all investigation of the truth behind these events and the genocidal agenda they were designed to advance?
....
https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/85822/warning-selfspreading-vaccines-are-closer-than-you.html
WARNING: Self-Spreading Vaccines Are Closer Than You Think
Investigative reporter Jefferey Jaxen brought to light an alarming reality on The Highwire Thursday: the ability to “vaccinate” the entire world without injecting large amounts of the population is upon us.
What we’re referring to is self-spreading vaccines, a technology that was almost ready to be deployed for the coronavirus pandemic — but ultimately passed on for mRNA injections instead.
So, it would be naive to think, four years later, that global health authorities wouldn’t push for its use in the event of another “global health crisis.”
The only thing stopping the mass use of this technology is this pesky thing known as informed consent. But the reality is, as evidenced by the COVID era, informed consent is not what it used to be.
The whole idea behind self-spreading vaccines is largely grounded in circumventing informed consent from individuals, or what scientists like to refer to as “behavioral barriers” or “vaccine delay.”
Just listen to their own words:
“Infectious disease control faces significant challenges including: how to therapeutically target the highest-risk populations, circumvent behavioral barriers, and overcome pathogen persistence and resistance mechanisms.”
“In a study from November, the [D]epartment [of Health] stated that self-spreading techniques could eliminate ‘vaccine delay.’”
The U.S. military and DARPA have also been researching self-spreading vaccines, with DARPA exploring antivirals to “evolve” in real-time against new viral strains.
However, if a self-spreading vaccine mutates in an unforeseen way, it could potentially pose grave risks for the entire population.
Attorney Aaron Siri issued a statement on the matter.
“With this product, the whole idea is they release it to basically one person, and it spreads to every single person on the globe. So if they mess it up one time, just once, just once,” he emphasized, “they can mess up the entire world.”
“What might even be the biggest victim ... if they ever release this thing, it’s going to be civil, individual rights... Here, they’re going to release a product where you’re going to have no choice effectively but to take it. That is the ultimate crushing of individual and civil rights.”
Please take the time to watch this important segment from The Highwire.
The full episode is available below:
No comments:
Post a Comment