1

World Economic Forum Announces Creation of an Orwellian Organization to Uproot All Opinions From the Internet that It Considers “Harmful”

By Leo HohmannWaking Times

The World Economic Forum announced June 29. It will initiate a new “public-private partnership” with Big Tech and governments worldwide to identify and uproot all opinions from the Internet that it considers “harmful.”

The WEF is one of those elitist organizations that wields enormous influence over the elected leaders of Western nations but which almost nobody in the general population has heard of.

Its members are internationalist corporate honchos and technocrats who meet once a year in Davos with the stated goal of working to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.”

It made a big splash last year with its highly touted “Great Reset,” which promises to use the pandemic as an “opportunity” to crash the world’s dollar-based, capitalist economic system and “build back better” under a more socialist and globally integrated system that mirrors the United Nations Agenda 2030 goals for Sustainable Development.

 

Any politician you hear using the term “build back better” [Biden-Harris-Trudeau-Johnson repeat this mantra daily] you know has drunk the poisonous Kool-Aid of the World Economic Forum and its founder, Klaus Schwab [pictured below].

Schwab’s latest venture is the so-called “Global Coalition for Digital Safety” that consists of execs from Big Tech and government officials to create a “global framework” for regulating speech on the Internet, wiping it of so-called “harmful content.”

[I could not help but think of the Committee of Public Safety that conducted the reign of terror during the French Revolution.]

And who gets to define what’s “harmful”? Why the global coalition set up by the elitist WEF of course!

The harmful” content targeted by this Global Coalition for Digital Safety you can bet will be tailor-made to entrap those who stand for limited government, traditional values, and individual freedom. Those of us who still believe in such things will not be included in the WEF’s definition of “inclusive,” “equality” or “diversity.”

“The Global Coalition for Digital Safety is a public-private platform for global, multi-stakeholder cooperation to develop innovations and advance collaborations that tackle harmful content and conduct online,” states the WEF on its website.

Microsoft immediately announced it was on board with the WEF’s plan to squelch free speech on the Internet.

Chief digital safety officer for Microsoft Courtney Gregoire stated:

“Technology offers tools to learn, play, connect, and contribute to solving some of the world’s greatest challenges. But digital safety harms remain a threat to these possibilities. As the World Economic Forum is uniquely positioned to accelerate the public-private collaboration needed to advance digital safety globally, Microsoft is eager to participate and help build whole-of-society solutions to this whole-of-society problem.”

Facebook also seems excited to get started on finding new ways to groom users to start thinking about turning in their friends for committing wrongthink. The social media giant has begun sending cryptic messages to some users that read as follows:

“Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?”

See the screenshot below that one user received from Facebook today, July 1, and sent to this reporter.

This program fits perfectly with the rhetoric coming out of Washington since Biden claimed the presidency.

Biden and his attorney general, Merrick Garland, take every opportunity to talk about “extremists” on the right being the “biggest threat to our democracy.” This is a classic propaganda technique used to turn public sentiment against a targeted demographic. The Nazis perfected this, using the media to blame all of Germany’s problems on Jews before they actually started rounding them up and making them disappear.

The next phase in this evil plan is to encourage Americans to turn each other into the online thought police. What happens next, after one has been reported to Facebook, Google, or Microsoft? Will the tech giants turn those accused of thought crimes by their online “friends” and “followers” over to Biden’s politicized FBI? This is exactly how it works in China.

Readers of this blog know that China is the model being touted by those who believe in the Great Reset. Now their plans are right out in the open on the World Economic Forum website with this announcement of their Global Coalition for Digital Safety.

The WEF states:

“With the growing challenge to counter health misinformation, violent extremist and terrorist content, and the exploitation of children online, there is an urgent need for more deliberate global coordination to improve digital safety.

“The Global Coalition for Digital Safety aims to accelerate public-private cooperation to tackle harmful content online and will serve to exchange best practices for new online safety regulation, take coordinated action to reduce the risk of online harms, and drive forward collaboration on programs to enhance digital media literacy.”

In the above quote, notice how sneakily the WEF lumps spreaders of “health misinformation” – that would be anyone who expresses reticence about experimental mass vaccination programs, COVID lockdowns, mandatory mask-wearing, etc. – in with violent extremists, terrorists, and child traffickers. How clever.

The WEF has the audacity to claim its coalition will be “impartial” in policing the Internet. This is the same organization run by Schwab, who openly states that the pandemic should be exploited as a “unique window of opportunity” to fundamentally change the way people live, work, do business and fit into society.

“The Forum is uniquely positioned to leverage its impartial platform and convening power to drive public-private cooperation amongst key stakeholders focused on improving safety online,” the WEF states in its release about the new coalition.

The WEF sets itself up as the global arbiter that defines terms like “harmful content” and “misinformation.” It also laments the fact that encrypted social media channels like Telegram and Signal are able to allow users to communicate free of censorship and spying.

Here are its recommendations for “key focus areas that now require coordinated action” by governments and their Big Tech allies:

1. Share Best Practices on Safety Standards: Exchange knowledge on policies and practices for improving online safety, considering content policies, remedies, transparency reports, use of data, and new technologies

2. Address Balance of Privacy and Safety: Share best practices on addressing the growing tension between privacy and safety as harmful content on encrypted channels risks evading detection

3. Market Competition: Drive better alignment between regulations focused on safety and competition to foster market innovation and enable consumer choice

4. Cross-Jurisdictional Content Cooperation: Enable action on content that spans jurisdictions and requires greater coordination amongst countries (e.g. content created in one county but causing harm in another)

5. Definitional Alignment: Support work on consistent definitions for content categories, such as self-harm and cyber-bullying to enable standardized enforcement, reporting, and measurement across regions.

If COVID taught us anything, it’s that Big Tech social media platforms, in league with global power elites, defined for us what is allowed and not allowed to be said on the Internet.

Posts that challenge the official narrative about the virus and the best way to respond to it were immediately censored, either tagged with warnings meant to discredit the posts or removed altogether.

The most typical reason for such censorship was that these posts “violated community standards,” which consist of mysterious, vaguely worded legalese that nobody reads.

Big Tech corporations are also increasingly working in concert with governments around the world, including in the U.S. and the ruling Chinese Communist Party in China, to regulate what people are allowed to see on the Internet.

But all of this control over the free flow of information is not enough for some of the global power elites.

Now they are ready to take their Gestapo tactics to the next level.

They want to turn us against each other.

Don’t let them do it.

Now is the time for all freedom-loving patriots in nations across the world to wake up, rise up, recognize these tactics as divisive and anti-human, and unite against this pernicious group of global predators.

About the Author

Leo Hohmann is an investigative reporter, covering issues on globalism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and where politics, culture, and religion intersect. Find his work at LeoHohmann.com.




Facebook Insider Blows Whistle on Vaccine Censorship

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Two Facebook insiders — a data center technician and a data center facility engineer — have come forward with internal documents showing how the social media platform is suppressing science and medical facts in the name of combating “vaccine hesitancy”
  • Documents prove Facebook is working on behalf of Big Pharma and in coordination with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization to protect and promulgate the false narrative that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for everyone
  • Facebook is beta testing a new algorithm that classifies users who post counternarrative information about vaccines into “vaccine hesitancy” tiers. The beta group comprises 1.5% of the total user base
  • The users are secretly assigned a “VH score” that dictates whether their posts and comments will be removed, demoted, or left alone, regardless of whether they’re factually accurate
  • Facebook’s suppression strategy is currently reducing “vaccine-hesitant” comments by 42.5% within the test group

May 24, 2021, Project Veritas released a video interview1 with two Facebook insider whistleblowers — a data center technician and a data center facility engineer — who have come forward with internal documents showing how the social media platform is suppressing science and medical facts in the name of combating “vaccine hesitancy.”

Facebook recently rolled out a beta test designed to censor negative vaccine information — regardless of its veracity and truthfulness — to eventually roll this censorship program in all nations, in as many languages as possible.

The documents prove Facebook is working on behalf of Big Pharma and in coordination with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization to protect and promulgate the false narrative that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for everyone. The platform is even hiding posts in which people who dutifully got the shots to talk about their adverse effects.

Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion

According to the internal documents, Facebook is beta testing a new algorithm that classifies users who post counternarrative information about vaccines into “vaccine hesitancy” (VH) tiers. The users are secretly assigned a “VH score” that dictates whether their posts and comments will be removed, demoted, or left alone — regardless of whether they’re factually accurate. According to Project Veritas:2

“The insider … revealed the tech giant was running the ‘test’ on 1.5% of its 3.8 billion users with the focus on the comments sections on ‘authoritative health pages.’ ‘They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page, before you even see it,’ the insider [said] …

The stated goal of this feature is to ‘drastically reduce user exposure’ to VH comments. Another aim of the program is to force a ‘decrease in other engagement of VH comments including create, likes, reports [and] replies.'”

Two-Tiered Rating System for Vaccine Content

Vaccine content is rated based on its perceived ability to “discourage vaccination in certain contexts, thereby contributing to vaccine hesitancy or refusal.” According to a “Borderline Vaccine Framework” document, vaccine content is “tiered … by potential harm and how much context is required to evaluate the harm.” The ratings are divided into three primary tiers:3

  1. Explicit discouragement of COVID vaccination
  2. Alarmism, criticism
  3. Indirect vaccine discouragement — This includes congratulating people who have refused the vaccine, “shocking stories” that may deter people from getting the vaccine, promoting alternatives to vaccination or “suggesting natural immunity is better versus getting the vaccine,” minimizing the risks of natural COVID-19 infection, voicing personal objections to or skepticism about the vaccine, and even “neutral discussion or debate”

Depending on where your comment falls within these tiers, your post or comment will be either removed or “demoted” to varying degrees. As noted by investigative journalist and founder of Project Veritas, James O’Keefe, in a Fox News interview:4

“What’s remarkable about these private documents … is that ‘Tier 2’ [violation] says even if the facts are true … you will be targeted and demoted — your comments will be targeted and demoted.”

While it’s unclear who approved this beta test, the listed authors of the “vaccine hesitancy comment demotion” program are senior software engineer Joo Ho Yeo;5 data scientist Nick Gibian6 who, according to LinkedIn, works on health misinformation and civic harassment; software engineer Hendrick Townley, who states his primary interests are in “harnessing technology and technical understanding towards strengthening our democratic institutions and solving pressing policy issues; “7 machine learning and data scientist Amit Bahl;8 and product manager Matt Gilles.9

A New Form of Shadow Banning

The comment demotion strategy that is currently being beta tested is very similar to shadow banning, where a user has been secretly banned — which means none of their followers can actually see their posts — yet they continue posting because they’re unaware that the content is not being disseminated.

Under this two-tier information suppression system, you will have no idea whether your posts or comments are being suppressed and can’t be seen by other users, and to which degree your post or comment is being suppressed. In general, however, the internal documents reveal that this suppression strategy is currently reducing “vaccine-hesitant” comments by 42.5% within the test group.

Facebook Is Actively Suppressing Life-Saving Science

Now, an example of a “vaccine-hesitant” comment is not just “I don’t know if I want the vaccine.” It also includes comments like, “I saw a study that said someone died who got the vaccine,” and personal experiences such as “Excruciating pain after my second vaccine! Shaking so bad, almost to convulsions.”

Facebook is even censoring and putting “fake news” labels on data obtained directly from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is jointly run by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

This despite having a public policy to “remove content that repeats … false health information … that is widely debunked by leading health organizations such as the World Health Organization and the CDC.”

They justify this by stating that VAERS data and other study findings cannot be communicated unless “full context” is provided. But as noted by the whistleblower, that’s a highly ambiguous term. What is the full context? Do you have to post an entire study for it to be contextual?

In the final analysis, it’s clear that Facebook is actively suppressing and censoring science, medical facts, and first-hand personal experiences, and in so doing, they are putting the whole world in harm’s way. By suppressing crucial information about vaccine risks, they eliminate any possibility of informed consent because it is impossible to understand the risks.

They are promoting ignorance that can, and I firmly believe, will, literally kill many of their users. And, since Facebook openly admits coordinating its censorship with the CDC and WHO, the same can probably be said for both of those organizations. As one of the whistleblowers tells O’Keefe:

“[Zuckerberg wants to] build a community where everyone complies — not where people can have an open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions. The narrative [is] get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you, everyone should get it. If you don’t, you will be singled out as an enemy of society.”

Facebook Has Turned From Digital Town Square to Digital Jail

The second whistleblower, a data center facility engineer, says Facebook is now “prohibiting people from having an open dialogue about issues that affect their personal security.” He likens the platform to an abusive partner who doesn’t allow their spouse to speak to friends and family about what’s going on behind closed doors.

Ironically, a leaked video from the same whistleblower shows Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, back in mid-July 2020, expressing his own vaccine hesitancy during a video conference.

“I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA,” Zuckerberg told his team, referring to COVID-19 vaccines under development.

As noted by O’Keefe, Zuckerberg’s own words would now violate his company’s public policy and rules of expression.

Children’s Health Defense Sues Facebook Over Censorship

In related news, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) sued Facebook in August 2020, charging the company, its CEO, Zuckerberg, and several fact-checking organizations with “censoring truthful public health posts and for fraudulently misrepresenting and defaming the children’s health organization.”10 As reported by The Defender, May 25, 2021:11

“The complaint12 alleges Facebook has ‘insidious conflicts’ with the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies, and details factual allegations regarding the CDC, CDC Foundation and the World Health Organization’s extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg, calling into question Facebook’s collaboration with the government in a censorship campaign.

Facebook censors CHD’s page, targeting factual information about vaccines, 5G and public health agencies. Facebook-owned Instagram deplatformed CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Feb. 10 without notice or explanation.

Lawyers for Children’s Health Defense are awaiting the ruling of Judge Susan Illston after defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss in the CHD lawsuit alleging government-sponsored censorship, false disparagement and wire fraud.”

Florida Governor Signs Law to Crack Down on Censorship

It seems legal action may be the only way to rein in censorship that has spiraled out of control, and Florida, my home state, is paving the way with brand-new legislation, SB 7072,13 to hold social media companies liable for their censorship. As reported by NBC News, May 24, 2021:14

“Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis … said the bill … cracks down on … social media ‘censorship’ while safeguarding Floridians’ ability to access social media platforms. ‘One of their major missions seems to be suppressing ideas that are either inconvenient to the narrative or which they personally disagree with,’ DeSantis said …

DeSantis … and others have accused social media companies of censoring conservative thought by removing posts or using algorithms that reduce the visibility of posts …

The bill also imposes hefty financial penalties against social media platforms that suspend the accounts of political candidates. The bill would fine companies $250,000 a day for doing so …

Florida’s attorney general can bring action against technology companies that violate the law, under Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and social media platforms found to have violated antitrust law will be restricted from contracting with any public entity, DeSantis said.”

The bill also allows private users to sue for certain violations, with statutory damages totaling up to $100,000 per proven claim or actual damages, plus punitive damages “if aggravating factors are present.”15

Facebook Harms Users in Other Ways Too

As detailed in “Harvard Professor Exposes Surveillance Capitalism,” which features an interview with Shoshana Zuboff, author of the book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” free social media platforms aren’t free. You pay with your personal data.

So, not only is Facebook and other social media companies suppressing your freedom of speech — often at the request of government officials, which is illegal — they’re also stealing your personal data and using it to control and manipulate you.

Their primary function isn’t actually to allow you to communicate with others. Their primary function is surveillance, data collection, and social engineering. In other words, you are the commodity, not the other way around. They need you far more than you need them.

Companies like Facebook, Google, and third parties of all kinds have the power and use that power, to target your personal inner demons, to trigger you, and to take advantage of you when you’re at your most vulnerable to entice you into action that serves them, commercially or politically.

Your entire existence — even your shifting moods, deciphered by facial recognition software — has become a source of revenue for corporate entities as you’re being cleverly maneuvered into doing (and typically buying) or thinking something you may not have done, bought, or thought otherwise.

Facebook’s massive experiments, in which they used subliminal cues to see if they could make people happier or sadder and affect real-world behavior offline, have proved that — by manipulating language and inserting subliminal cues in the online context — they can change real-world behavior and real-world emotion, and that these methods and powers can be exercised “while bypassing user awareness.”

Other technologies, such as digital security systems, employ hidden microphones to spy on your private conversations. All of these data streams, from cell phones, computers, “smart” appliances, and video cameras around public areas add to ever-expanding predictive modeling capabilities that, ultimately, are used to control and manipulate you.

We Need New Laws

As noted by Zuboff, the reason we’re in this creepy situation is that there are no laws in place to curtail this brand-new type of surveillance capitalism. Indeed, the only reason it has been able to flourish over the past 20 years is that there’s been an absence of laws against it, primarily because it has never previously existed.

Google and Facebook were the only ones who knew what they were doing. The surveillance network grew in the shadows, unbeknownst to the public or lawmakers. The good news is, it’s not too late to take back both our privacy — and our freedom of speech online — but we need legislation that addresses the reality of the entire breadth and depth of these systems in their entirety. As noted by Zuboff:16

“The choice to turn any aspect of one’s life into data must belong to individuals by virtue of their rights in a democratic society. This means, for example, that companies cannot claim the right to your face, or use your face as free raw material for analysis, or own and sell any computational products that derive from your face …

Anything made by humans can be unmade by humans. Surveillance capitalism is young, barely 20 years in the making, but democracy is old, rooted in generations of hope and contest.

Surveillance capitalists are rich and powerful, but they are not invulnerable. They have an Achilles heel: fear. They fear lawmakers who do not fear them. They fear citizens who demand a new road forward as they insist on new answers to old questions: Who will know? Who will decide who knows? Who will decide who decides? Who will write the music, and who will dance?”

How to Protect Your Online Privacy

While there’s no doubt we need a whole new legislative framework to curtail surveillance capitalism and censorship alike, in the meantime, there are ways you can protect your privacy online and limit the “behavioral surplus data” collected about you. (As of yet, there’s not much you can do about online censorship, other than encouraging your state legislators to address it, as Florida just began to do.) To protect your privacy, consider taking the following steps:17

Ditch Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms that siphon your personal data and censor content — Today, there are free-speech alternatives that do neither of those things.
Use a virtual private network (VPN) to mask the true identity of your computer.
Do not use Gmail, as every email you write is permanently stored. It becomes part of your profile and is used to build digital models of you, which allows them to make predictions about your line of thinking and every want and desire.

Many other older email systems such as AOL and Yahoo are also being used as surveillance platforms like Gmail. ProtonMail.com, which uses end-to-end encryption, is a great alternative and the basic account is free.

Don’t use Google’s Chrome browser, as everything you do on there is surveilled, including keystrokes and every webpage you’ve ever visited. Brave is a great alternative that takes privacy seriously.

Brave is also faster than Chrome and suppresses ads. It’s based on Chromium, the same software infrastructure that Chrome is based on, so you can easily transfer your extensions, favorites, and bookmarks.

Don’t use Google as your search engine, or any extension of Google, such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which draw search results from Google. The same goes for the iPhone’s personal assistant Siri, which draws all of its answers from Google.

Alternative search engines include SwissCows, DuckDuckGo, and Qwant. Avoid StartPage, as it has been bought by an aggressive online marketing company that, like Google, depends on surveillance.

Don’t use an Android cellphone, as they are always listening and recording your conversations.
Don’t use Google Home devices — These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sound such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google.
Regularly clear your cache and cookies.
Don’t use Fitbit, as it has been acquired by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.



Bombshell Video, Leaked Documents Detail How Facebook Censors Vaccine Facts When They Don’t Fit CDC, Big Pharma Narrative

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Investigative journalist James O’Keefe from Project Veritas on Monday released a bombshell video of two Facebook insiders blowing the whistle on the tech giant’s effort to secretly censor — on a global scale — COVID vaccine questions and concerns.

The Facebook whistleblowers alleged the company is pushing an initiative to censor vaccine hesitancy on its platform.

According to newly leaked documents, the social media giant uses algorithms to target users who disseminate messaging that runs counter to the company’s political ideology and vaccine narrative — even if the comments are factually accurate.

An internal memo obtained by Project Veritas explained “Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion.” O’Keefe told Sean Hannity on Monday that Facebook initiated a “beta” test for the algorithm that classifies some users under two incremental tiers of what they dub “vaccine hesitancy” or a “VH Score,” and does so without the user’s knowledge.

The stated goal of the new feature is to “drastically reduce user exposure” to “VH” comments, O’Keefe’s team reported, and decrease “other engagement of VH comments including creating, likes, reports [and] replies.”

“Based on that VH score, we will demote or leave the comment alone depending on the content within the comment,” an anonymous whistleblower said.

The insider, who is described by O’Keefe as a “data center technician” for Facebook, revealed the tech giant was running the “test” on 1.5% of its 3.8 billion users with the focus on the comments sections on “authoritative health pages.”

“They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it,” the insider told O’Keefe.

Another leaked document addressed “Borderline Vaccine Framework,” which classifies content with another expressed “goal” to “identify and tier the categories of non-violating content that could discourage vaccination in certain contexts, thereby contributing to vaccine hesitancy or refusal.” The framework states: “We have tiered these by potential harm and how much context is required in order to evaluate the harm.”

The ratings are divided into two tiers: “Alarmism & Criticism” and “Indirect Vaccine Discouragement,” which includes celebrating vaccine refusal and “shocking stories” that may deter others from getting vaccinated even if events or facts are potentially or actually true.

The algorithm flags key terms in comments to determine whether or not it can remain in place but allows human “raters” to make a ruling if the algorithm cannot do so itself.

“What’s remarkable about these private documents that Facebook has not wanted you to see until tonight is that ‘Tier 2’ [violation] says even if the facts are true that you will be targeted and demoted — your comments will be targeted and demoted,” O’Keefe said.

The first whistleblower told O’Keefe that Facebook, led by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, wants to “build a community where everyone complies — not where people can have an open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions.”

“The narrative [is] get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you, everyone should get it. If you don’t, you will be singled out as an enemy of society.”

In response to the leaked documents, Facebook told Project Veritas, “We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information.”

O’Keefe, however, said the change in policy has largely been private while Facebook holds itself out as being a free speech town square.

Facebook working with CDC to censor reports of vaccine injury from its own VAERS system

Facebook insiders and leaked internal documents allege the company coordinates with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to censor vaccine content, including reports submitted to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

“So the VAERS is a Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. It looks like [Facebook] is measuring the comments where they’re mentioning where, you know, that the patient died,” said the Facebook whistleblower. “Really they [the CDC] support all of this because you know they release the standards, the CDC themselves. And that’s really one of, one of the primary things that Facebook is basing their policy off of.”

Under Facebook’s Borderline Vaccine Framework, content pointing to VAERS data is censored because it suggests “extreme risk without providing context.”

The insider said Facebook is open about the fact they’re coordinating with the CDC.

Ultimately, any facts that don’t fit a particular narrative are omitted, demoted, deboosted, banned, or considered dangerous to society, said O’Keefe.

Children’s Health Defense sues Facebook over censorship

In August 2020, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit charging Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and several fact-checking organizations with censoring truthful public health posts and for fraudulently misrepresenting and defaming the children’s health organization.

The complaint alleges Facebook has “insidious conflicts” with the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies, and details factual allegations regarding the CDC, CDC Foundation, and the World Health Organization’s extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg, calling into question Facebook’s collaboration with the government in a censorship campaign.

Facebook censors CHD’s page, targeting factual information about vaccines, 5G, and public health agencies. Facebook-owned Instagram de-platformed CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Feb. 10 without notice or explanation.

Lawyers for Children’s Health Defense are awaiting the ruling of Judge Susan Illston after the defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss in the CHD lawsuit alleging government-sponsored censorship, false disparagement, and wire fraud.




New Findings on COVID-19 Origins Prove Big Tech Censorship is a Danger to Seeking Truth

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

In 2020, anyone who shared information on social media about anything related to COVID-19 and the lab in Wuhan, China, or that mentioned the possibility that COVID-19 was man-made, saw their post removed and may have even been banned. Facebook, Twitter, Google, the establishment media, and many in the government made it their primary mission to “dispel misinformation” over the origins of the COVID-19 virus.

The arbiters of truth in Big Tech claimed and vehemently pushed the idea — based only on theories — that the COVID-19 virus originated in nature, and anyone who challenged or questioned this view was a dangerous conspiracy theorist.

Twitter even took to completely remove the account of a Chinese virologist who came forward with these claims. Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who was reportedly a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Hong Kong School of Public Health, had her Twitter account suspended after she claimed the coronavirus was created in a lab and put forth a trove of data to back up her claims.

Just one year ago, CNN put out a hit piece claiming that “Anthony Fauci just crushed Donald Trump’s theory on the origins of the coronavirus.” Anyone who claimed otherwise was fact-checked into oblivion, their profiles banned, and if they had pages, their reach was diminished to nothing, if not entirely removed.

It was established. The fact-checkers were correct and anyone who challenged them was a danger to society. But the fact-checkers who dismissed this information did not do so with “facts” at all. Instead, they simply promoted one theory over another. And now, they are eating their words.

Last May, Washington Post’s Fact Checker team reported that the “balance of the scientific evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the new coronavirus emerged from nature,” and their article was used to warn readers on Facebook who may have shared information that challenged this theory.

However, as the Washington Post just reported, last week, a group of 18 preeminent scientists published a letter in the journal Science saying a new investigation is needed, because “theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable.”

Now, Dr. Fauci has changed his stance on the matter, stating that these claims of lab origination somehow hold water a year later — despite “crushing” them last year.

Earlier this month, Fauci spoke at a Poynter event where he was asked about the origin of the virus. Instead of repeating the same narrative he has for an entire year, he changed course and is now saying he is “not convinced” the virus developed naturally.

“No actually. I am not convinced about that. I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened,” Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, said, according to Fox News.

“Certainly, the people who investigated it say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could have been something else, and we need to find that out. So, you know, that’s the reason why I said I’m perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origin of the virus,” he added.

“Do you think it’s possible that COVID-19 arose from a lab accident … in Wuhan, and should it be fully investigated?” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) a doctor, asked Fauci during a Senate hearing earlier this month.

“That possibility certainly exists, and I am totally in favor of a full investigation of whether that could have happened,” he replied.

Wait what??? What happened to the settled science that this came from a bat? Science happened, that’s what.

Despite the partisan media hacks, including their “fact-checkers” attempting to squash all debate and claim a single truth, scientists continued doing what scientists do and their investigation and experimentation have led to new information. Thankfully, there happen to still be people out there who conduct research for the sake of seeking truth — instead of simply making their political rivals look stupid.

While we still have no idea where this virus came from, the notion of silencing one opinion and choosing another one is the opposite of an intelligent debate.

This shows us the problem with the so-called fact-checkers. Over the past several years, their partisan tendencies have become so obvious that they appear to many as toddlers on the playground holding their fingers in their ears and humming loudly to avoid hearing anything they are being told.

The Free Thought Project has been “fact-checked” nearly a dozen times and we have had most of them overturned with the exception of two groups who would not reply back to our requests.

Make no mistake, there are definitely some asinine and utterly stupid conspiracy theories out there on just about everything, including COVID-19. But does society need handlers to hide these things from them by censoring those who engage with them?

Stupid ideas didn’t use to go extremely viral. Even in the furthest corners of the conspiracy theory realm, verifiably false facts were easily proven wrong and dismissed swiftly. But that no longer happens now thanks to fact-checkers.

Because fact-checkers are heavily based along party lines, even when they are perfectly truthful, their partisan nature tends to make their political rivals dismiss actual facts.

“If the libtards at PolitiFact say it’s false then it must be true!” See how that goes? Now, the censorship and big tech bans lend credibility to stupid ideas and they spread like wildfire as a result. This is not a good thing.

While fact-checkers certainly provide a benefit, the idea of using them to censor skeptics is dangerous. Fact-checking sites are certainly welcomed but when they have the authority to silence those who may disagree with the majority consensus, we move from providing a benefit to silencing crucial and much-needed skepticism.

To be clear, a scientific consensus is not to be easily discounted. Thousands of people all coming to similar conclusions through varying applications of the scientific method is a powerful means of explaining and understanding our environment and presence on this planet and in the universe. Coming to a consensus allows humanity to make better decisions about fostering a more sustainable future and helps us figure out how to progress as a species and deal with the various woes we face — like COVID-19.

That being said, the collective is often dangerously — and deadly — wrong. Indoctrinating people to unquestioningly accept what the fact-checkers say as fact, like so many of these fact-checkers have done over the past year through various means of information manipulation can and will have damning consequences.

This current method of canceling, censoring, and banning, sets out to grow the herd of consensus, simply by convincing people that doing anything but unquestioningly accepting the consensus is wrong.

This is dangerous, as an incorrect consensus going unchecked can and has led to immeasurable death and human suffering. Eugenics anyone? Or how about “weapons of mass destruction”?

Without skepticism, group think prevails and the group thinks kills.

While it is entirely noble to want to rid humanity of disinformation, sometimes that ‘disinformation’ is actually the truth. Without the crazies in the peanut gallery keeping scientists and the consensus on their A-game, the reality is not challenged and disinformation can become mainstream.

In the words of the late great George Carlin, humanity would do well to always “Question Everything.”

About the Author

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on TwitterSteemit, and now on Minds.




Why I’m Removing All Articles Related to Vitamins D, C, Zinc and COVID-19 | Dr. Mercola

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Over the past year, I’ve been researching and writing as much as I can to help you take control of your health, as fearmongering media and corrupt politicians have destroyed lives and livelihoods to establish global control of the world’s population, using the COVID-19 pandemic as their justification
  • Through it all, I have refused to succumb to these relentless attacks. I have been confident and willing to defend myself in the court of law
  • Unfortunately, threats have now become very personal and have intensified to the point I can no longer preserve much of the information and research I’ve provided to you thus far. So, effective immediately, much of the information on my website will be permanently removed

Over the past year, I’ve been researching and writing as much as I can to help you take control of your health, as fearmongering media and corrupt politicians have destroyed lives and livelihoods to establish global control of the world’s population, using the COVID-19 pandemic as their justification.

I’ve also kept you informed about billionaire-backed front groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a partner of Bill Gates’ Alliance for Science, both of whom have led campaigns aimed at destroying my reputation and censoring the information I share.

Other attackers include HealthGuard, which ranks health sites based on a certain set of “credibility criteria.” It has sought to discredit my website by ensuring warnings appear whenever you search for my articles or enter my website in an internet browser.

Well-Organized Attack Partnerships Have Formed

HealthGuard, a niche service of NewsGuard, is funded by the pharma-funded public relations company Publicis Groupe. Publicis, in turn, is a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a “Great Reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life.

HealthGuard is also partnered with Gates’ Microsoft company, and drug advertising websites like WebMD and Medscape, as well as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — the progressive cancel-culture leader with extensive ties to the government and global think tanks that recently labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as a national security threat.

The CCDH has published a hit list naming me as one of the top 12 individuals responsible for 65% of vaccine “disinformation” on social media, and who therefore must be de-platformed and silenced for the public good. In a March 24, 2021, letter1 to the CEO’s of Twitter and Facebook, 12 state attorneys general called for the removal of our accounts from these platforms, based on the CCDH’s report.

Two of those state attorneys general also published April 8, 2021, op-ed2 in The Washington Post, calling on Facebook and Twitter to ban the “anti-vaxxers” identified by the CCDH. The lack of acceptance of novel gene therapy technology, they claim, is all because a small group of individuals with a social media presence — myself included — are successfully misleading the public with lies about nonexistent vaccine risks.

“The solution is not complicated. It’s time for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to turn off this toxic tap and completely remove the small handful of individuals spreading this fraudulent misinformation,” they wrote.3

Pharma-funded politicians and pharma-captured health agencies have also relentlessly attacked me and pressured tech monopolies to censor and deplatform me, removing my ability to express my opinions and speak freely over the past year.

The CCDH also somehow has been allowed to publish4 in the journal Nature Medicine, calling for the “dismantling” of the “anti-vaccine” industry. In the article, CCDH founder Imran Ahmed repeats the lie that he “attended and recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers,” when, in fact, what he’s referring to was a public online conference open to an international audience, all of whom had access to the recordings as part of their attendance fee.

The CCDH is also partnered with another obscure group called Anti-Vax Watch. The picture below is from an Anti-Vax Watch demonstration outside the halls of Congress. Ironically, while the CCDH claims to be anti-extremism, you’d be hard-pressed to find a clearer example of actual extremism than this bizarre duo.5

AntiVaxWatch

Gates-Funded Doctor Demands Terrorist Experts to Attack Me

Most recently, Dr. Peter Hotez, president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute,6 which has received tens of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,7,8,9 — with funds from the foundation most recently being used to create a report called “Meeting the Challenge of Vaccine Hesitancy,”10,11 — also cited the CCDH in a Nature article in which he calls for cyberwarfare experts to be enlisted in the war against vaccine safety advocates and people who are “vaccine-hesitant.” He writes:12

“Accurate, targeted counter-messaging from the global health community is important but insufficient, as is public pressure on social-media companies. The United Nations and the highest levels of government must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States.

Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures.

The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counteroffensive.”

Why is Hotez calling for the use of warfare tactics on American citizens that have done nothing illegal? In my case, could it be because I’ve written about the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus, created through gain-of-function research, and that its release was anticipated by global elites, as evidenced in Event 201?

It may be. At least those are some of my alleged “sins,” detailed on page 10 of the CCDH report, “Disinformation Dozen: The Sequel.”13 Coincidentally enough, the Nature journal has helped cover up gain-of-function research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, publishing a shoddy zoonotic origins study relied upon by mainstream media and others, which was riddled with problems.14,15

So, it’s not misinformation they are afraid of. They’re afraid of the truth getting out. They’re all trying to cover for the Chinese military and the dangerous mad scientists conducting gain-of-function work.

You may have noticed our website was recently unavailable; this was due to direct cyber-attacks launched against us. We have several layers of protective mechanisms to secure the website as we’ve anticipated such attacks from malevolent organizations.

What This Means for You

Through these progressively increasing stringent measures, I have refused to succumb to these governmental and pharmaceutical thugs and their relentless attacks. I have been confident and willing to defend myself in the court of law, as I’ve had everything reviewed by some of the best attorneys in the country.

Unfortunately, threats have now become very personal and have intensified to the point I can no longer preserve much of the information and research I’ve provided to you thus far. These threats are not legal in nature, and I have limited ability to defend myself against them. If you can imagine what billionaires and their front groups are capable of, I can assure you they have been creative in deploying their assets to have this content removed.

Sadly, I must also remove my peer-reviewed published study16 on the “Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and Its Severity.” It will, however, remain on the highly-respected journal Nutrients’ website, where you can still access it for free.

The MATH+ hospital treatment protocol for COVID-19 and the iMASK+ prevention and early outpatient COVID-19 protocol — both of which are based on the use of vitamins C, D, quercetin, zinc, and melatonin — are available on the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s website. I suggest you bookmark these resources for future reference.

It is with a heavy heart that I purge my website of valuable information. As noted by Dr. Peter McCullough during a recent Texas state Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing, data shows early treatment could have prevented up to 85% (425,000) of COVID-19 deaths.17 Yet early treatments were all heavily censored and suppressed.

McCullough, in addition to being a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the Texas A&M University Health Sciences Center, also has the distinction of having published the most papers of any person in the history of his field and being an editor of two major medical journals. Despite that, his video, in which he went through a paper he’d published detailing effective early treatments, was summarily banned by YouTube in 2020.

“No wonder we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s no treatment!” McCullough told the Senate panel.18 Indeed, people are in dire need of more information detailing how they can protect their health, not less. But there’s only so much I can do to protect myself against current attack strategies.

They’ve moved past censorship. Just what do you call people who advocate counteroffensive attacks by terrorism and cyberwarfare experts? You’d think we could have a debate and be protected under free speech but, no, we’re not allowed. These lunatics are dangerously unhinged.

The U.S. federal government is going along with the global Great Reset plan (promoted as “building back better”), but this plan won’t build anything but a technological prison. What we need is a massive campaign to preserve civil rights, and vote out the pawns who are destroying our freedom while concentrating wealth and power.




State Attorneys General Threaten to Silence Dr. Mercola

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Government officials are misusing their positions of power to openly call for censorship of certain groups, organizations, and individuals in direct violation of Constitutional law
  • The latest in a series of free speech attacks comes from two state attorneys general, Letitia James and William Tong, who in a Washington Post op-ed threaten social media companies with legal ramifications if they do not censor a dozen individuals claimed to be responsible for 65% of “anti-vaccine” content
  • In a recent ruling, in which he weighed in on the ability of social media giants to control free speech, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas clarified that “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly”
  • The basis for the AGs’ censorship push is a report by two previously unknown groups called the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Anti-Vax Watch, neither of which has declared funding sources
  • Opinions are protected speech under the First Amendment, as is reporting on published science — even if that science is later found to be flawed, incomplete, or, in the worst case, outright fraudulent

While, for many years, I’ve been a popular target for Big Pharma smear campaigns, 2020 onward has really given new meaning to what it means to be under attack. I’m not alone, by any means, as censorship of anti-propaganda narratives have ratcheted up to unprecedented levels for many others seeking to uncover the truth.

These days, even elected government officials misuse their positions of power to openly call for censorship of certain groups, organizations, and individuals in direct violation of Constitutional law — the highest law of the land.

The latest in this series of attacks comes from two state attorneys general, Letitia James of New York and William Tong of Connecticut, who in an April 8, 2021, op-ed1 in The Washington Post stated, right in the headline, that “Anti-vaxxers put us all at risk,” and that “Facebook and Twitter must ban them.”

According to James and Tong, COVID-19 vaccine availability marks “the end of the pandemic and the start of our recovery,” but “vaccine availability means nothing without vaccine acceptance.”

This lack of acceptance of novel gene therapy technology, they claim, is all because a small group of individuals with a social media presence — myself included — are successfully misleading the public with lies about nonexistent vaccine risks.

“The solution is not complicated. It’s time for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to turn off this toxic tap and completely remove the small handful of individuals spreading this fraudulent misinformation,” they write.2

‘The Disinformation Dozen’

The basis for their censorship push is a report by two previously unknown groups called the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and Anti-Vax Watch, both of which are opaque in the extreme as to their history and funding.

According to that report,3 “The Disinformation Dozen,” a mere 12 individuals “are responsible for a full 65% of anti-vaccine content on Facebook and Twitter,” Tong and James write, again stressing that “they must be removed from the platforms.”4

But, just who are these “social media researchers” whose word Tong and James take as gospel? An online search for “Anti-Vax Watch” delivers a single hit for a site called antivaxwatch.org, which is nothing but a simple news aggregator. Its “About” page provides no names, no indication of who is part of this group, or who funds them.

The CCDH is only marginally better. As detailed in “Pressure Mounts to Ban My New Book From Amazon,” the CCDH is a one-man organization with undisclosed funding and connections to technocrat-led institutions that support the Great Reset.

By way of its board members, the CCDH can be linked to the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the European Council of Foreign Relations, Save the Children Fund (funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Alliance), the British Parliament, the CIA, and Reuters. CCDH chairman Simon Clark even has ties to a participant of Event 201 (former CIA deputy director Avril Haines).

Event 201 was a coronavirus pandemic exercise held in October 2019 that foreshadowed and “played out” the draconian countermeasures implemented when COVID-19 appeared mere months later. Curiously enough, a primary focus of that exercise was how to best censor and counteract problematic narratives about the virus, public disagreement with pandemic measures, and doubts about vaccine safety.

It’s All About Social Engineering

You would think that if public health were the primary concern and impetus behind such an exercise — as opposed to wealth transfer, economic destruction, and societal reformation — it would focus on the medical and scientific strategies of how to best contain and control the actual virus, and not how best to contain and control information about the virus. Infectious disease control science would have been the key feature, not the science of social engineering.

“Let us be clear — nothing is wrong with asking questions and researching vaccine effectiveness and safety,” Tong and James write.5 “We are not in any way looking to limit the ability of individuals to ask these important questions, but the small handful of people we’re talking about are simply promoting dangerous lies …”

People in search of vaccine information should “seek out legitimate medical experts … and official sources, such as local departments of public health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” they say, adding that:

“As the chief law enforcement officers of our states, we can say that there is no First Amendment right to spread disinformation on social media.”

What Is Disinformation?

The problem with this argument is that what they perceive and label as “disinformation” is entirely subjective. The definition of “disinformation” provided by the American Heritage Dictionary is: “Deliberately misleading information” and “Dissemination of intentionally false information to deliberately confuse or mislead.”

I — and, as far as I know, none of the others on the CCDH’s hit list — am not engaging in the dissemination of “intentionally false” information with the “deliberate intent” to confuse or mislead. We provide information — the other side of the story — that “official” sources and mainstream media not only refuse to share but social media platforms will ban them for sharing. We provide a counterbalance to the wholly one-sided official narrative.

With respect to my own site, my articles are fully referenced to publications in the medical literature, and I make every effort to clearly indicate where I insert my own opinions.

I’ve also published my own research in peer-reviewed journals, the last of which was a scientific review6 on the impact of vitamin D in COVID-19, co-written with William Grant, Ph.D., and Dr. Carol Wagner, both of whom are part of the GrassrootsHealth expert vitamin D panel. You can read the paper for free on the journal’s website.

Opinions are protected speech under the First Amendment, as is reporting on published science — even if that science is later found to be flawed, incomplete, or, in the worst case, outright fraudulent. The fake hydroxychloroquine study in The Lancet, which was ultimately retracted after being exposed, is a perfect example.

This study, which was found to be completely fraudulent, was reported as fact, worldwide, by virtually all mainstream media and continues to serve as the basis for the WHO’s discrediting of hydroxychloroquine. If opinion and scientific reporting were not protected speech, Tong’s and James’ own op-ed could be banned, as could every single mainstream media report on scientific findings that have ever been published.

No one has unequivocal rights to the truth. No one “owns” the truth. There is no single group or organization on this earth that knows everything, has all the facts, and tells the unbiased truth. Tong and James would like you to believe otherwise. They want you to listen to select sources only — sources which, curiously, only present one side of any given argument. This is what social engineering is all about.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,” Lavrentiy Beria once said. Beria, described7 as “the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror,” claimed he could prove criminal conduct on behalf of anyone, even people who were completely innocent.

Indeed, anyone can be made to look like a crook. Facts can be twisted through clever wording salted with hidden bias. But, usually, the truth tends to win in the end. You just have to survive long enough.

Illegal Attacks on Free Speech

In their op-ed, Tong and James admit they intend to use their official powers to force social media companies to comply with their demand to censor certain individuals. If platforms refuse to violate the free speech of select people, they will find something to prosecute. Does this sound unethical to anyone else but me?

As noted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an April 5, 2021, ruling8 in which he weighed in on the ability of social media giants to control free speech:

“The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly … Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital platform if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats.”

As attorneys general, Tong and James are government officials and, as such, they are legally barred from accomplishing “through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits [them] from doing directly.”

In other words, they do not have the legal right to pressure social media companies into violating the First Amendment rights9 of Americans when they do not have the legal right to censor or “abridge”10 free speech themselves. Put yet another way, it is illegal for government officials to pressure private companies into censoring free speech on their behalf or at their request since they as government officials do not themselves have the right to infringe on free speech.

‘Free Press’ Pushes for Censorship, and More

The fact that attorneys general are now getting involved and calling for censorship is to be a sign of just how desperate Big Pharma and the Great Reset interests are getting. There’s no room for free speech and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment in that New World Order.

To their credit, they have, over the decades, masterfully infiltrated and now appear to control all the required areas of influence, from media, Big Tech and Hollywood, to nongovernmental organizations with global influence, government agencies, and intelligence agencies of all stripes.

In a sane, free world concerned with democratic processes, we simply would not see a “free press” calling for the censorship of books,11 we would not see public officials calling for the selective elimination of free speech (as has been done by several congressmen and senators in recent months12,13,14), and writing legislation aimed at penalizing social media companies that refuse to censor.15

We would not see a dozen state attorneys general — chief law enforcers — calling for the selective elimination of First Amendment rights by private companies,16 and we would not see intelligence agencies using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools to aid in the elimination of select speech online.17,18,19

In a free world, all of these would stand squarely on the side of free speech rights. So, that must mean we no longer live in a free world where democratic processes and Constitutional rights are given their due consideration.

Decentralized Uncensorable Web Is Part of the Answer

In his legal commentary,20 Supreme Court Justice Thomas presents an intriguing idea for how to address the monopolistic power over speech currently wielded by social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, which would be to treat them as public utilities that, like phone service providers, must serve all customers, without discrimination.21

That’s certainly one way to go, and would probably be a positive strategy. Beyond that, however, we really need a more censor-proof web in general. This is something a decentralized, blockchain-based web can provide. I am currently working with some of the brightest minds in the tech space who are committed to preserving your personal freedoms and liberties.

The technology22 focuses on maintaining data sovereignty, giving you control over your data and privacy, and undoing the current system of surveillance capitalism where Big Tech profits off your personal data and uses it against you at the same time. In this Web 2.0, tech monopolies also will no longer have the ability to censor.

In the meantime, consider ditching social media networks that erode your civil liberties, and join those that promote freedom of speech instead. For example, free-speech alternatives to Facebook and Twitter include Gab, MeWe, Minds, and Parler. Uncensored alternatives to YouTube include Bitchute, Rumble, Brighteon, BrandNewTube, Banned.video, and Thinkspot.

For content creators and alternative news sources that no longer have a social media presence due to censoring, subscribe to their newsletter if available, and/or mark their website in your favorites and check back on a regular basis.




‘Digital Anti-Hate’ Group Puts Dr. Mercola on Hit List (Plus Mercola’s Website Has Been Labeled a National Security Threat)

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • One of the frontrunners in the comprehensive attack on freedom of speech online is a U.K.-based group with opaque funding called the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)
  • The CCDH has been one of the most vocal organizations calling for the de-platforming of anyone who might have the ability to influence public opinion about vaccines
  • The CCDH recently posted a hit list on Twitter, listing the “Top 10 anti-vaxxers” it wants digital platforms to eradicate, including yours truly and the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which worked with the U.S. Congress to establish the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986
  • March 2, 2021, Facebook complied with CCDH’s request, removing NVIC’s account. CCDH is also calling on Facebook to eliminate NVIC from Instagram, which Facebook owns
  • While you wait for a decentralized, censorship-free internet, consider ditching all social media networks that erode our civil liberties, and join those that promote freedom of speech instead

As detailed in “Spy Agencies Threaten to ‘Take Out’ Mercola,” this website has been labeled a national security threat by British and American intelligence agencies that are collaborating to eliminate “anti-vaccine propaganda” from public discussion using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools.1,2,3

One of the public frontrunners in this comprehensive attack on my freedom of speech is a U.K.-based group with opaque funding called the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), led by Imran Ahmed, a member of the Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force under the British government’s Commission for Countering Extremism.

In its report, “The Anti-Vaxx Playbook,”4 the CCDH identifies me as one of the six most influential “anti-vaxxers” online that must be silenced for good. The other five are Barbara Loe Fisher, Del Bigtree, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Sherri Tenpenny, and Andrew Wakefield.

The CCDH also admits tracking and spying on 425 vaccine-related Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter account that, together, have 59.2 million followers.5

The CCDH has been one of the most vocal organizations calling for the de-platforming of anyone who might have the ability to influence public opinion about vaccines.6 This despite the fact that public discourse and debate is a requirement not only for a well-informed public but also to protect scientific integrity and public health.

Anti-Hate Group Publishes Digital Hit List

More recently, the CCDH published an updated hit list on Twitter,7 now listing the “Top 10 anti-vaxxers” it wants digital platforms to eradicate. The list shows, by way of crossing out names, which have already been successfully de-platformed, and from which social media.

As of March 3, 2021, Kennedy Jr. has been banned from Instagram, and the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), co-founded and led by Fisher, has been removed from Facebook.

“Facebook has removed the NVIC, another page spreading vaccine misinformation run by Barbara Loe Fisher,” CCDH said in its Tweet.8 “But Facebook has allowed the NVIC to carry on spreading misinformation on Instagram, which it owns. Facebook, it’s time for action across your platforms.”

Facebook and Instagram Top 10 anti-vaxxers

Good News: People Are Seeing Through the Propaganda

The irony of an “anti-hate” group posting a hit list — the only purpose of which is to seed public outrage and hate against those listed — did not escape unnoticed, and that’s part of the good news. More and more people are indeed starting to see the 1984-style double-think propaganda for what it is.

As pointed out by one Twitter follower: “You’ve posted what appears to be a digital hit list. Do you not see anything ironic about this considering your brand is ‘countering digital hate’?” “Project much?” said another. A third replied back to the CCDH saying “You should be on this list,” and a fourth said, “It appears that by the word ‘hate’ you include uncomfortable truths.” Other responders wrote:

  • “I have personally benefited from the free TRUE loving information that at least seven on your list have given me since 2011. I have only gratitude and love for them. No regular doctor could help me back then and thanks to the info I got I didn’t die and I have helped others too.”
  • “’ Misinformation’ … what a joke!! These people are putting their careers and livelihoods on the line to share the TRUTH, to empower us to take our health into our own hands and realize it’s the only way!! This is more a top list of who to follow!!!”
  • “This is nonsense at the extreme. Censorship has gone mad and needs to be heavily questioned and stopped — this is what all dictators and extremists themselves do! How ironic! The CCDH is extremist dangerous hate criminals themselves for doing this!”
  • “Stop the censorship! We are seeing through this failed attempt to spread valuable information from people.”
  • “Congratulations to every hero on that list.”

I could keep going, but you can read the comments for yourself. I encourage you to do so if you feel downtrodden, thinking the dark side is winning the information war. They’re not, but they get an “A” for effort. We, in turn, cannot let up our own efforts to spread the truth. We must be just as persistent.

NVIC — The Latest Victim in the War on Truth

NVIC, the latest victim of the CCDH’s organized attack on the U.S. First Amendment, had maintained a Facebook page since 2008. The organization itself has been around for nearly four decades and worked with the U.S. Congress to establish the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Facebook deleted NVIC’s account on March 2, 2021.

NVIC does not make recommendations when it comes to the use of vaccines, its sole aim being to “defend the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk-taking, including vaccine risk-taking.” Part of that work includes publishing fully referenced information about vaccines so that consumers can make an informed decision either way.

Considering few doctors, and none of the pro-vaccine front groups, are transparent about reported side effects and science raising red flags, NVIC serves a truly crucial public health service. You simply cannot make an informed decision if you’re only ever told one side of the equation — the supposed benefit side — while potential adverse effects, which may be lifelong, are hidden or denied. As reported by independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson:9

“Far from a fringe group, as propagandists try to convince the public, Fisher has provided consumers with crucial vaccine safety information for decades and served as an appointed member of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on the National Vaccine Advisory Committee as part of the Vaccine Safety Writing Group, on the agency’s Vaccine Policy Analysis Collaborative, on the Blue Ribbon Panel on Vaccine Safety, and Chair of the Subcommittee on Vaccine Adverse Events.

Additionally, Fisher has served as a member of the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. And she has been a member of the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Forum.”

NVIC Responds to Deplatforming

In an official statement, Fisher responded to the de-platforming by Facebook saying:10

“We are not surprised that Mark Zuckerberg views the truthful information that NVIC publishes about vaccine science, policy and law as a threat to perpetuating false narratives about vaccine safety created by the pharmaceutical industry and its business partners.

The U.S Congress has encouraged the creation of public-private business partnerships between vaccine manufacturers and federal agencies for the past three decades.

In order to be part of those lucrative partnerships, Silicon Valley companies like Facebook are clearly happy to engage in censorship. If NVIC had not done such a good job educating the public about vaccination and health for four decades, our Facebook page would still be up.

NVIC encourages everyone to leave social media networks eroding civil liberties, which include freedom of thought, speech and conscience, and join those that protect freedom of speech.

To stay connected with NVIC, become a registered user of the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal and defend vaccine choices in your state; become a subscriber of our free NVIC Newsletter and free weekly journal digital newspaper, The Vaccine Reaction; and interact with our followers on MeWeTelegramGab and Parler.”

Decentralized Uncensorable Web Is Part of the Answer

As more and more truth-tellers, public-health watchdogs, civil rights advocates, and investigative journalists are censored and de-platformed, it’s easy to get discouraged. However, there is light on the horizon. Part of the answer, apart from calling on our political representatives to take a firm stand against censorship at every turn, is the creation of a decentralized web.

I am currently working with some of the brightest minds in the tech space — cybersecurity experts and billionaire philanthropists who are very well networked. These individuals are committed to preserving their personal freedoms and liberties. We aim to redo the entire internet by implementing a strategy proposed by Tim Berners-Lee.

For those of you who don’t know, Berners-Lee invented the world wide web graphical interface of the internet 30 years ago, and he didn’t take a penny for it. Had he licensed this technology, he surely would be the richest person in the world today.

You can read more about Berners-Lee’s plan in this February 5, 2021, article in The Conversation,11 but essentially, it focuses on maintaining data sovereignty, giving you control over your data and privacy, and undoing the current system of surveillance capitalism where Big Tech profits off your personal data and uses it against you at the same time. In this Web 2.0, tech monopolies also will no longer have the ability to censor.

While you wait for a decentralized, censorship-free internet, I second Fisher’s suggestion to ditch all social media networks that erode your civil liberties and to join those that promote freedom of speech instead.

For example, free-speech alternatives to Facebook and Twitter include Gab, MeWe, Minds, and Parler. Uncensored alternatives to YouTube include Bitchute, Rumble, Brighteon, Banned.video, and Thinkspot.

For content creators and alternative news sources that no longer have a social media presence due to censoring, subscribe to their newsletter if available, and/or mark their website in your favorites and check back on a regular basis.

Take Control of Your Online Presence

Beyond that, consider safeguarding your own online privacy if you haven’t done so already. To encrypt your text messages and keep them from becoming data mining fodder, download the Signal or Telegram app and/or use a virtual private network (VPN) on your desktop, laptop, and mobile devices.

Telegram has grown in popularity as many who have been banned on other social media platforms have migrated there. In addition to encrypting your text messages, the app also allows you to subscribe to channels. Read-only messages (although some also have the ability to comment) are sent to your phone from any channel you subscribe to.

Lastly, if you care about privacy and free speech, stop using any and all Google products, including its search engine, browser, email service, Google docs, Google Home devices, Fitbit, and Android phones. There are alternatives to all of them.

For search, check out DuckDuckGo and SwissCows. For a browser, consider Brave or Opera. From a security perspective, Opera is far superior to Google Chrome and even includes a free VPN service. For encrypted email, sign up with ProtonMail, which is based in Switzerland. As for online document sharing, Digital Trends has published an article listing a number of alternatives to Google Docs.12




Who’s Behind Global Effort to Silence Critics of the ‘Great Reset?’

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | The Defender

Story at-a-glance:

  • The Publicis Groupe, a leading PR firm, represents major companies within the technology, pharmaceutical, and banking industries. These companies, in turn, have various partnerships with the U.S. government and global nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
  • Publicis is a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a “reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life. As such, Publicis appears to be playing an important role, coordinating the suppression of information that runs counter to the technocratic narrative.
  • The role of the free press is to counter industry propaganda. That role has been effectively subverted through advertising. News outlets rarely report on something that might damage their advertisers.
  • Publicis connects to the drug industry, banking industry, NewsGuard/HealthGuard, educational institutions, Big Tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Bing, the U.S. State Department and Department of Defense, global technocratic institutions like the World Health Organization, national and global NGOs like the CCDH and the World Economic Forum, and dominating health websites like WebMD and Medscape.
  • These connections, taken together, explain how certain views can be so effectively erased. The answer to this dilemma is transparency. We must expose the machinations that allow this agenda to be pushed forward.

Any strategy that successfully manipulates public opinion is bound to be repeated, and we can now clearly see how the tobacco industry’s playbook is being used to shape the public narrative about COVID-19 and the projected post-COVID era.

In 2011, after many years of raising awareness regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and industrial agriculture, we decided we needed a new game plan. Educating people through our newsletter was great, but we realized the best way to expose Monsanto — a leading GMO advocate and patented seed owner at the time — was to get them to engage directly and ensure national attention.

To that end, Mercola.com funded the signature gathering in California that initiated Proposition 37, the right to know what’s in your food by ensuring proper GMO labeling. We spent more than $1 million for the Prop 37 initiative, plus several million dollars more for GMO labeling initiatives in other U.S. states in the following years.

This initiative forced Monsanto to engage with the public directly to defend their toxic products and dangerous business practices, all while receiving national coverage in the process.

The Monsanto case

Monsanto spent tens of millions of dollars attacking anyone in their way, but they did so indirectly, just like the tobacco industry did before them. This is the core take-home of what I’m about to describe next.

They used a public relations team to do most of their dirty work — paying scientists and academics to voice their “independent opinions,” influencing scientific journals, and getting journalists and editorial boards to write favorable and influential pieces to help them maintain their lies and influence minds.

Still, while the spending of tens of millions of dollars to influence voters resulted in a narrow defeat of Prop 37, the new, widespread awareness of GMOs, pesticides, and industrial agriculture eventually led to Monsanto’s demise.

In 2013, in a last-ditch effort to salvage its tarnished image, Monsanto hired the PR firm Ketchum. As noted in a HuffPost article by Paul Thacker, “Monsanto hit reboot with Ketchum,” which “created a campaign called GMO Answers, and used social media and third-party scientists to offer a counter-narrative to allay concern about Monsanto’s products.”

The GMO Answers’ website is set up to allow professors at public universities to answer GMO questions from the public — supposedly without remuneration from the industry. But over the years, evidence emerged showing that these academics are far from independent, and often end up getting paid for their contributions via hidden means, such as unrestricted grants.

University of Florida professor Kevin Folta is one prominent example described in my 2016 article “Scientific American — Another Monsanto Bedfellow.” In that article, I also review how GMO Answers co-sponsored a panel discussion about GMOs in March that year with the media and partnerships division of Scientific American.

At the time, Jeremy Abatte, vice president and publisher of Scientific American, insisted the event was not a Ketchum event but a Scientific American event. Few bought his reasoning though, and many ended up filing Scientific American into the chemical biotech shill category.

Having purchased Monsanto at the end of 2016, Bayer continued the strategy to rely on PR firms for public acceptance. In the article “Bayer’s Shady PR Firms: FleishmanHillard, Ketchum, FTI Consulting,” U.S. Right to Know reviews the many deception scandals involving these firms. A key discovery was evidence showing “there are objective strategies to silence strong voices.”

After investigating the strategies used by Monsanto and Bayer, we can now see that the same playbook is being used by Big Tech and Big Pharma to shape the public narratives about COVID-19 and the Great Reset. Again, a central facet of these campaigns is to silence critics, in particular, those with large online followings, including yours truly.

I have been publicly labeled a “national security threat” to the U.K. by Imran Ahmed, a member of the Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force under the British government’s Commission for Countering Extremism and the chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

According to Ahmed, I and others who question the safety and necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine may be prone to violent extremism. This defamatory statement clearly has no basis in reality whatsoever. Rather, it’s part of the propaganda aimed at destroying the opposition — in this case, the opposition to the technocrats driving the Great Reset agenda, which spans across social, economic, and health-related sectors.

As reported by the National Vaccine Information Center, which was also on the CCDH list of national security threats:

“The anonymously funded CCDH also has an office in Washington, D.C. and the defamatory publicity campaign created in December 2020 was designed to not only discredit NVIC’s four-decade public record of working within the U.S. democratic system to secure vaccine safety and informed consent protections in public health policies and laws, but to destroy our small charity.”

Publicis is an organizing force in the Great Reset deception

Public deception is now being carried out at a mass scale, and the whole thing appears to be led and organized by another major PR firm, this time the Publicis Groupe, self-described as “one of the world’s largest communications groups,” which represents major companies within the technology, pharmaceutical, and banking industries.

These companies, in turn, have various partnerships with the U.S. government and global nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Publicis itself is also a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a “reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life. As you will see, Publicis’ fingerprints can be found throughout the net of censorship and misdirection that is now being cast across the digital landscape.

The Publicis Groupe has manipulated what people think about commercial products for nearly a century. Over that century, they have bought or partnered with targeted advertising avenues, beginning with newspapers, followed by radio, TV, cinema, and the internet. More recently, they’ve branched into Big Data acquisitions and artificial intelligence platforms.

To understand the power PR companies such as Publicis have today, you need to understand the role of the free press. While pro-industry advertising worked well for decades, there was still the irksome problem of the Fourth Estate, a term that refers to the press.

The problem for industry was that professional investigative journalists working for magazines, newspapers, and broadcast outlets would write in-depth exposés, outing the truth behind deceptive advertising and countering industry propaganda with science, statistics, and other documented facts — and when a free press with honest reporting based on verifiable facts actually does its job, ineffective or toxic products are driven off the market.

The answer that industry came up within the late 20th century to combat truth in journalism was, pure and simple, to control the Fourth Estate with advertising dollars. News organizations will simply not run reports that might harm the bottom line of their advertisers.

By further partnering with the “big guns” of media — such as the Paley Center for Media — Publicis and its industry clients have been able to influence and control the press to restrict, indeed virtually eliminate, your ability to get the truth on many important issues.

Publicis, Big Pharma and NewsGuard

To start off this sprawling web of industry connections surrounding Publicis, let’s look at its connections to the self-appointed internet watchdog NewsGuard. NewsGuard rates websites on criteria of “credibility” and “transparency,” ostensibly to guide viewers to the most reliable sources of news and information.

In reality, however, NewsGuard ends up acting as a gatekeeper with a mission to barricade unpopular truth and differences of opinion behind closed gates. Its clearly biased ranking system easily dissuades people from perusing information from low-rated sites, mine included.

NewsGuard received a large chunk of its startup capital from Publicis. NewsGuard also has ties to The Paley Center for Media, mentioned earlier. For clarification, The Paley Center is composed of every major media in the world, including Microsoft, AOL, CBS, Fox, and Tribune Media. One of its activities is to sponsor an annual global forum for industry leaders.

NewsGuard is housed in The Paley Center in New York City. In November 2015, Publicis’ chairman of North America, Susan Gianinno, joined The Paley Center’s board of trustees.

Leo Hindery, a former business partner of the co-CEOs of NewsGuard, Steven Brill, and Gordon Crovitz, is also a former trustee and director of The Paley Center. Taken together, NewsGuard has fairly influential connections to The Paley Center besides being a tenant in their building.

As mentioned, Publicis represents most of the major pharmaceutical companies in the world, and since so much of its revenue comes from the drug industry, it’s not far-fetched to assume Publicis might influence NewsGuard’s ratings of drug industry competitors, such as alternative health sites.

Publicis, Big Pharma, NewsGuard, and Big Tech

Next, let’s add a layer of Big Tech into the mix. Publicis, which represents Big Pharma, not only has the ability to influence the public through NewsGuard, but it’s also a Google partner, which allows it even greater ability to bury undesirable views that might hurt its clientele.

NewsGuard is also partnered with Microsoft, initially through Microsoft’s Defending Democracy Program. Through an expanded partnership announced in 2020, Microsoft Edge users gained access to NewsGuard for free, and Microsoft Bing gained access to NewsGuard’s data.

Publicis, pharma, NewsGuard, Big Tech, government, and NGOs

Expanding the web further onto government and NGO territory, we find that NewsGuard is also connected to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the World Health Organization. All three are listed as NewsGuard partners.15 NewsGuard is also partnered with:

  • Public libraries
  • Schools
  • MSN
  • Bing
  • Trend Micro and many others

To summarize, the web around Publicis now includes international drug companies, NewsGuard, Google, Microsoft, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the WHO, and the World Economic Forum. Mind you, this is not a comprehensive review of links. It’s merely a sampling of entities to give you an idea of the breadth of these connections, which when taken together explain how certain views can be so effectively erased.

Add in ‘anti-hate’ group and Google-trusted health sites

But we’re not done yet. NewsGuard’s health-related service called HealthGuard is also partnered with WebMD, Medscape, and the CCDH — the progressive cancel-culture leader with extensive ties to the government and global think tanks that recently labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as national security threats.

In 2017, WebMD was acquired by Internet Brands, a company under the global investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) umbrella. KKR also owns several other health-related internet brands. Since WebMD owned Medscape, it too now belongs to the KKR Internet Brands as well.

Together, HealthGuard, CCDH, WebMD, and Medscape have launched a public service campaign called VaxFacts. The goal of the campaign is to “provide facts and tools to help consumers make informed decisions about vaccines,” WebMD reports.

In tandem with that campaign, Google is funding fact-checking organizations to the tune of $3 million, with the aim of countering “vaccine misinformation,” and NewsGuard maintains a “Coronavirus Misinformation Tracking Center” that includes a “Top COVID-19 Vaccine Myths Tracker.”

WebMD dominates health searches done through Google and shares user information with Google’s advertising arm and other third-party firms — a practice that is illegal in Europe.

What this means is DoubleClick, Google’s ad service knows which prescriptions you’ve searched for on the site, thus providing you with personalized drug ads, and Facebook knows what you’ve searched for in WebMD’s symptom checker, as well as any medical diagnoses you received. I reviewed these findings in “WebMD and Healthline exposed Violating Your Privacy.”

Since most of its revenue comes from advertising, WebMD is far from an independent source of well-researched health news. For example, it has been caught shilling for Monsanto, publishing industry-friendly “articles” that are really paid advertisements known in the media world as advertorials.

Ten years ago, WebMD was also caught publishing a fake online depression screening test. In actuality, it was an advertising trick for the antidepressant Cymbalta, and there was no way for test takers to get a clean bill of mental health.

Summary

So, to recap, we find connections between the drug industry, NewsGuard/HealthGuard, educational institutions, Big Tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Bing, the U.S. State Department and DOD, global technocratic institutions like the WHO, national and global NGOs like the CCDH and the World Economic Forum, and dominating health websites like WebMD and Medscape.

Again, this is far from an exhaustive investigation of these kinds of connections. It’s merely a small sampling of readily obvious relationships. Toward the center of this web is the Publicis Groupe, the clients of which include major drug companies, Big Tech companies, and financial institutions in more than 100 countries.

By the way, Publicis also began investing in artificial intelligence technology in 2017 and partnered with Microsoft in 2018 to develop a global AI platform. It also purchased the data firm Epsilon in 2019, thereby establishing ownership of first-party data — a crucially valuable resource when it comes to the use of AI.

As detailed on its website, the firm’s expertise is concentrated within four main activities: communication, media, data, and technology (including AI services), and all clients have access to its expertise in all of these areas.

While it’s easy to dismiss Publicis as just another ad agency, I believe it would be foolish to underestimate its power to organize the kind of coordination required to shut down vaccine concerns, anti-lockdown proponents, and people trying to educate their fellow man about the dangers of the Great Reset, which is being brought forth as a “necessary” post-COVID step.

While these things may seem unrelated, they’re really not. As mentioned, the Great Reset involves everything — including health, education, government, economics, redistribution of wealth, business practices, environmental “protections” and much more.

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense The Defender.




White House Enlists Social Media Giants to Suppress Vaccine ‘Misinformation’

By Megan Redshaw, J.D. | The Defender

The White House is asking Big Tech giants Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet Inc.’s Google to “clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information,” according to the New York Post and other news reports.

Reuters reported that Biden, concerned that “fear about taking the vaccine has emerged as a major impediment” to his administration’s pandemic plan, wants help from the social media moguls to keep “misinformation” from going viral.

“Vaccine hesitancy is a huge obstacle to getting everyone vaccinated and there are no larger players in that than the social media platforms,” a White House source told Reuters late last week.

Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain had previously said information questioning the COVID vaccine has caused others to question the vaccine. But the news out of Washington last week was the first sign that officials are directly engaged with Silicon Valley in censoring social media users, according to Reuters.

“Social media tycoons are now openly serving as government surrogates in censoring factually accurate information that departs from government policies and pronouncements,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., co-founder, and chair of Children’s Health Defense.

The Biden administration wants to make sure that unfavorable material does not start trending on social media or become an even broader movement, citing concerns over a recent anti-vaccine protest at Los Angeles Dodgers Stadium which was organized through a Facebook page.

“We are talking to [social media companies] … so they understand the importance of misinformation and disinformation and how they can get rid of it quickly,” a White House source explained.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-N.Y.) last week criticized social media companies in a tweet accusing Facebook and Twitter of moving too slowly in responding to targeted harassment of people getting vaccinated and what Blumenthal described as “dangerous conspiracy theories.”

A spokesperson for Facebook told Reuters the company has reached out to the White House to offer any assistance they can provide and recently announced a new policy to remove COVID information the company deems false, along with pages, groups, and accounts that repeatedly spread such material.

Twitter stated the company is in “regular communication with the White House on a number of critical issues including COVID-19 misinformation.”

Google did not comment on engagement with the White House but did point to a company blog on how it stops the spread of misinformation.

In August 2020 Children’s Health Defense filed a lawsuit charging Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and several fact-checking organizations with censoring truthful public health posts and for fraudulently misrepresenting and defaming the children’s health organization.

The complaint alleges that Facebook has insidious conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies and raised detailed factual allegations regarding the CDC, CDC Foundation, and WHO’s extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg calling into question Facebook’s joint action in a censorship campaign with the government.

Earlier this month, Kennedy’s Instagram account was de-platformed without advance notice for what the media claimed were “false COVID claims” or “vaccine misinformation.” Some reports falsely characterized Kennedy as an “anti-vaxxer.”

Kennedy unequivocally rejects those characterizations. He wrote in response to Instagram’s censorship:

“Every statement I put on Instagram was sourced from a government database, from peer-reviewed publications, and from carefully confirmed news stories. None of my posts were false. Facebook, the pharmaceutical industry, and its captive regulators use the term ‘vaccine misinformation’ as a euphemism for any factual assertion that departs from official pronouncements about vaccine health and safety, whether true or not. This kind of censorship is counterproductive if our objective is a safe and effective vaccine supply.”

As Kennedy has stated numerous times, “for a democracy to function, the civil debate of issues — including vaccine science — must be allowed. Censorship of that debate is anathema to democracy.”

Many reports have raised serious questions about the safety of COVID vaccines, including adverse reactions and other possible long-term complications that deserve debate, Kennedy said.

The Defender reported in January that a Florida doctor died three days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. An expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins said in an interview with The New York Times, “I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.”Earlier this month, the CDC announced it was investigating the death of a 36-year-old doctor in Tennessee who died from an extremely rare multisystem inflammatory syndrome one month after getting his second dose of a COVID vaccination.

Drene Keyes, whose death is under investigation, died hours after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. She experienced flash pulmonary edema likely caused by anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, which some have experienced after receiving the COVID vaccine.

According to new data released Friday, as of Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System since Dec. 14, 2020. One-third of reported deaths occurred within 48 hours of receiving the COVID vaccine.

“While social media companies are private entities with rights to censor information they don’t like, the involvement of the government in censorship efforts implicates the First Amendment,” Kennedy said.




Techno-Censorship: The Slippery Slope from Censoring ‘Disinformation’ to Silencing Truth

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”― George Orwell

This is the slippery slope that leads to the end of free speech as we once knew it.

In a world increasingly automated and filtered through the lens of artificial intelligence, we are finding ourselves at the mercy of inflexible algorithms that dictate the boundaries of our liberties.

Once artificial intelligence becomes a fully integrated part of the government bureaucracy, there will be little recourse: we will be subject to the intransigent judgments of techno-rulers.

This is how it starts.

Martin Niemöller’s warning about the widening net that ensnares us all still applies.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

In our case, however, it started with the censors who went after extremists spouting so-called “hate speech,” and few spoke out—because they were not extremists and didn’t want to be shamed for being perceived as politically incorrect.

Then the internet censors got involved and went after extremists spouting “disinformation” about stolen elections, the Holocaust, and Hunter Biden, and few spoke out—because they were not extremists and didn’t want to be shunned for appearing to disagree with the majority.

By the time the techno-censors went after extremists spouting “misinformation” about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines, the censors had developed a system and strategy for silencing the nonconformists. Still, few spoke out.

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 “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.

Whatever we tolerate now—whatever we turn a blind eye to—whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others, whether in the name of securing racial justice or defending democracy or combatting fascism, will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

Watch and learn.

We should all be alarmed when prominent social media voices such as Donald TrumpAlex JonesDavid Icke, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are censored, silenced, and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram for voicing ideas that are deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

The question is not whether the content of their speech was legitimate.

The concern is what happens after such prominent targets are muzzled. What happens once the corporate techno-censors turn their sights on the rest of us?

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

We are on a fast-moving trajectory.

Already, there are calls for the Biden administration to appoint a “reality czar” in order to tackle disinformation, domestic extremism, and the nation’s so-called “reality crisis.”

Knowing what we know about the government’s tendency to define its own reality and attach its own labels to behavior and speech that challenges its authority, this should be cause for alarm across the entire political spectrum.

Here’s the point: you don’t have to like Trump or any of the others who are being muzzled, nor do you have to agree or even sympathize with their views, but to ignore the long-term ramifications of such censorship would be dangerously naïve.

As Matt Welch, writing for Reason, rightly points out, “Proposed changes to government policy should always be visualized with the opposing team in charge of implementation.

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.

As Glenn Greenwald writes for The Intercept:

The glaring fallacy that always lies at the heart of pro-censorship sentiments is the gullible, delusional belief that censorship powers will be deployed only to suppress views one dislikes, but never one’s own views… Facebook is not some benevolent, kind, compassionate parent or a subversive, radical actor who is going to police our discourse in order to protect the weak and marginalized or serve as a noble check on mischief by the powerful. They are almost always going to do exactly the opposite: protect the powerful from those who seek to undermine elite institutions and reject their orthodoxies. Tech giants, like all corporations, are required by law to have one overriding objective: maximizing shareholder value. They are always going to use their power to appease those they perceive wield the greatest political and economic power.

Welcome to the age of technofascism.

Clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness, technofascism is powered by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) working in tandem to achieve a common goal.

Thus far, the tech giants have been able to sidestep the First Amendment by virtue of their non-governmental status, but it’s a dubious distinction at best. Certainly, Facebook and Twitter have become the modern-day equivalents of public squares, traditional free speech forums, with the internet itself serving as a public utility.

But what does that mean for free speech online: should it be protected or regulated?

When given a choice, the government always goes for the option that expands its powers at the expense of the citizenry’s. Moreover, when it comes to free speech activities, regulation is just another word for censorship.

Right now, it’s trendy and politically expedient to denounce, silence, shout down and shame anyone whose views challenge the prevailing norms, so the tech giants are lining up to appease their shareholders.

This is the tyranny of the majority against the minority—exactly the menace to free speech that James Madison sought to prevent when he drafted the First Amendment to the Constitution—marching in lockstep with technofascism.

With intolerance as the new scarlet letter of our day, we now find ourselves ruled by the mob.

Those who dare to voice an opinion or use a taboo word or image that runs counter to the accepted norms are first in line to be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out, and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes” and banished from society.

For example, a professor at Duquesne University was fired for using the N-word in an academic context. To get his job back, Gary Shank will have to go through diversity training and restructure his lesson plans.

This is what passes for academic freedom in America today.

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.

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, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist, and obedient to Big Brother.

Nothing good can come from techno-censorship.

Again, to quote Greenwald:

Censorship power, like the tech giants who now wield it, is an instrument of status quo preservation. The promise of the internet from the start was that it would be a tool of liberation, of egalitarianism, by permitting those without money and power to compete on fair terms in the information war with the most powerful governments and corporations. But just as is true of allowing the internet to be converted into a tool of coercion and mass surveillance, nothing guts that promise, that potential, like empowering corporate overlords and unaccountable monopolists to regulate and suppress what can be heard.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, these internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns. They’re laying the groundwork to preempt any “dangerous” ideas that might challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.

Therefore, it is important to recognize the thought prison that is being built around us for what it is: a prison with only one route of escape—free thinking and free speaking in the face of tyranny.

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is the founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.




The Real Reason Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Is Being Censored

By Edward Curtin | The Defender

“The CIA and the media are part of the same criminal conspiracy,” wrote Douglas Valentine in his important book, “The CIA As Organized Crime.”

This is true. The corporate mainstream media are stenographers for the national security state’s ongoing psychological operations aimed at the American people, just as they have done the same for an international audience.

We have long been subjected to this “information warfare,” whose purpose is to win the hearts and minds of the American people and pacify them into victims of their own complicity, just as it was practiced long ago by the CIA in Vietnam and by The New York Times, CBS, etc. on the American people then and over the years as the American warfare state waged endless wars, coups, false flag operations and assassinations at home and abroad.

Another way of putting this is to say for all practical purposes when it comes to matters that bear on important foreign and domestic matters, the CIA and the corporate mainstream media cannot be distinguished.

For those who read and study history, it has long been known that the CIA has placed their operatives throughout every agency of the U.S. government, as explained by Fletcher Prouty in “The Secret Team,” that CIA officers Cord Myer and Frank Wisner operated secret programs to get some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom among intellectuals, journalists, and writers to be their voices for unfreedom and censorship. As explained by Frances Stonor Saunders in “The Cultural Cold War” and Joel Whitney in “Finks,” among others, that Cord Myer was especially focused on and successful in “courting the Compatible Left” since right-wingers were already in the agency’s pocket.

All this is documented and not disputed. It is shocking only to those who don’t do their homework and see what is happening today outside a broad historical context.

With the rise of alternate media and a wide array of dissenting voices on the internet, the establishment felt threatened and went on the defensive. It, therefore, should come as no surprise that those same elite corporate media are now leading the charge for increased censorship and the denial of free speech to those they deem dangerous, whether that involves wars, rigged elections, foreign coups, COVID-19, vaccinations, or the lies of the corporate media themselves.

Having already banned critics from writing in their pages and or talking on their screens, these media giants want to make the quieting of dissenting voices complete.

Just the other day The New York Times had this headline:

“Robert Kennedy Jr. Barred From Instagram Over False Virus Claims.”

Notice the lack of the word alleged before “false virus claims.” This is guilt by the headline. It is a perfect piece of propaganda posing as reporting, since it accuses Kennedy, a brilliant and honorable man, of falsity and stupidity, thus justifying Instagram’s ban, and it is an inducement to further censorship of Mr. Kennedy by Facebook, Instagram’s parent company.

That ban should follow soon, as the Times’ reporter Jennifer Jett hopes since she accusingly writes that RFK, Jr. “makes many of the same baseless claims to more than 300,000 followers” on Facebook. Jett made sure her report also went to MSN.com and The Boston Globe.

This is one example of the censorship underway with much, much more to follow. What was once done under the cover of omission is now done openly and brazenly, cheered on by those who, in an act of bad faith, claim to be upholders of the First Amendment and the importance of free debate in a democracy. We are quickly slipping into an unreal totalitarian social order.

This brings me to the recent work of Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, both of whom have strongly and rightly decried this censorship. As I understand their arguments, they go like this:

First, the corporate media have today divided up the territory and speak only to their own audiences in echo chambers: liberal to liberals (read: the “allegedly” liberal Democratic Party), such as The New York Times, NBC, etc., and conservative to conservatives (read “the allegedly” conservative Donald Trump), such as Fox News, Breitbart, etc.

They have abandoned old school journalism that, despite its shortcomings, involved objectivity and the reporting of disparate facts and perspectives, but within limits. Since the digitization of news, their new business models are geared to these separate audiences since they are highly lucrative choices. It’s business-driven since electronic media have replaced paper as advertising revenues have shifted and people’s ability to focus on complicated issues has diminished drastically.

Old school journalism is suffering as a result and thus writers such as Greenwald and Taibbi and Chris Hedges (who interviewed Taibbi and concurs: part one here) have taken their work to the internet to escape such restrictive categories and the accompanying censorship.

Secondly, the great call for censorship is not something the Silicon Valley companies want because they want more people using their media since it means more money for them, but they are being pressured to do it by the traditional old school media, such as The New York Times, who now employ “tattletales and censors,” people who are power-hungry jerks, to sniff out dissenting voices that they can recommend should be banned.

Greenwald says,

“They do it in part for power: to ensure nobody but they can control the flow of information. They do it partly for ideology and out of hubris: the belief that their worldview is so indisputably right that all dissent is inherently dangerous ‘disinformation.’”

Thus, the old-school print and television media are not on the same page like Facebook, Twitter, etc. but have opposing agendas.

In short, these shifts and the censorship are about money and power within the media world as the business has been transformed by the digital revolution.

I think this is a half-truth that conceals a larger issue. The censorship is not being driven by power-hungry reporters at the Times or CNN or any media outlet. All these media and their employees are but the outer layer of the onion, the means by which messages are sent and people controlled.

These companies and their employees do what they are told, whether explicitly or implicitly, for they know it is in their financial interest to do so. If they do not play their part in this twisted and intricate propaganda game, they will suffer. They will be eliminated, as are pesky individuals who dare peel the onion to its core.

Each media company is one part of a large interconnected intelligence apparatus — a system, a complex — whose purpose is power, wealth, and domination for the very few at the expense of the many. The CIA and media as parts of the same criminal conspiracy.

To argue that the Silicon Valley companies do not want to censor but are being pressured by the legacy corporate media does not make sense. These companies are deeply connected to U.S. intelligence agencies, as are the NY Times, CNN, NBC, etc.  They too are part of what was once called “Operation Mockingbird,” the CIA’s program to control, use and infiltrate the media. Only the most naïve would think that such a program does not exist today.

In Surveillance Valley, investigative reporter Yasha Levine documents how Silicon Valley tech companies like FacebookAmazon, and Google are tied to the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex in surveillance and censorship; how the Internet was created by the Pentagon; and even how these shadowy players are deeply involved in the so-called privacy movement that developed after Edward Snowden’s revelations.

Like Valentine, and in very detailed ways, Levine shows how the military-industrial-intelligence-digital-media complex is part of the same criminal conspiracy as is the traditional media with their CIA overlords. It is one club.

Many people, however, might find this hard to believe because it bursts so many bubbles, including the one that claims that these tech companies are pressured into censorship by the likes of The New York Times, etc. The truth is the Internet was a military and intelligence tool from the very beginning and it is not the traditional corporate media that gives it its marching orders.

That being so, it is not the owners of the corporate media or their employees who are the ultimate controllers behind the current vast crackdown on dissent, but the intelligence agencies who control the mainstream media and the Silicon Valley monopolies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. All these media companies are but the outer layer of the onion, the means by which messages are sent and people controlled.

But for whom do these intelligence agencies work? Not for themselves.

They work for their overlords, the super-wealthy people, the banks, financial institutions, and corporations that own the U.S and always have. In a simple twist of fate, such super-wealthy naturally own the media corporations that are essential to their control of the majority of the world’s wealth through the stories they tell.

It is a symbiotic relationship.

As Franklin D. Roosevelt put it bluntly in 1933, this coterie of wealthy forces is the “financial element in the larger centers [that] has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” Their wealth and power have increased exponentially since then, and their connected tentacles have further spread to create what is an international deep state that involves such entities as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, those who meet yearly at Davos, etc.

They are the international overlords who are pushing hard to move the world toward a global dictatorship.

As is well known or should be, the CIA was the creation of Wall St. and serves the interests of the wealthy owners. Peter Dale Scott, in “The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld,” says of Allen Dulles, the nefarious longest-running Director of the CIA and Wall St. lawyer for Sullivan and Cromwell:

“There seems to be little difference in Allen Dulles’s influence whether he was a Wall Street lawyer or a CIA director.”

It was Dulles, long connected to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, international corporations, and a friend of Nazi agents and scientists, who were tasked with drawing up proposals for the CIA. He was ably assisted by five Wall St. bankers or investors, including the aforementioned Frank Wisner who later, as a CIA officer, said his “Mighty Wurlitzer” was “capable of playing any propaganda tune he desired.”

This he did by recruiting intellectuals, writers, reporters, labor organizations, and the mainstream corporate media, etc. to propagate the CIA’s messages.

Greenwald, Taibbi, and Hedges are correct up to a point, but they stop short. Their critique of old school journalism à la Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing of Consent model, while true as far as it goes, fails to pin the tail on the real donkey. Like old school journalists who knew implicitly how far they could go, these guys know it too, as if there is an invisible electronic gate that keeps them from wandering into dangerous territory.

The censorship of Robert Kennedy, Jr. is an exemplary case. His banishment from Instagram and the ridicule the mainstream media have heaped upon him for years is not simply because he raises deeply informed questions about vaccines, Bill Gates, the pharmaceutical companies, etc. His critiques suggest something far more dangerous is afoot: the demise of democracy and the rise of a totalitarian order that involves total surveillance, control, eugenics, etc. by the wealthy led by their intelligence propagandists.

To call him a super spreader of hoaxes and a conspiracy theorist is aimed at not only silencing him on specific medical issues but to silence his powerful and articulate voice on all issues. To give thoughtful consideration to his deeply informed scientific thinking concerning vaccines, the World Health Organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc., is to open a can of worms that the powerful want shut tight.

This is because RFK, Jr. is also a severe critic of the enormous power of the CIA and its propaganda that goes back so many decades and was used to cover up the national security state’s assassination of both his father and his uncle.

It is why his wonderful recent book, “American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family,” which contains not one word about vaccines, was shunned by mainstream book reviewers; for the picture, he paints fiercely indicts the CIA in multiple ways while also indicting the mass media that have been its mouthpieces.

These worms must be kept in the can, just as the power of the international overlords represented by the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum with its Great Reset must be. They must be dismissed as crackpot conspiracy theories not worthy of debate or exposure.

Robert Kennedy, Jr., by name and dedication to truth-seeking, conjures up his father’s ghost, the last politician who, because of his vast support across racial and class divides, could have united the country and tamed the power of the CIA to control the narrative that has allowed for the plundering of the world and the country for the wealthy overlords.

So they killed him.

There is a reason Noam Chomsky is an exemplar for Hedges, Greenwald, and Taibbi.  He controls the can opener for so many. He has set the parameters for what is considered acceptable to be considered a serious journalist or intellectual. The assassinations of the Kennedys, 9/11, or a questioning of the official COVID-19 story are not among them, and so they are eschewed.

To denounce censorship, as they have done, is admirable. But now Greenwald, Taibbi, and Hedges need to go up to the forbidden gate with the sign that says — “This far and no further” — and jump over it. That’s where the true stories lie. That’s when they’ll see the worms squirm.

Originally published by Off Guardian.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




Censorship is the New Front in the War on Consciousness

By Dylan CharlesWaking Times

Editor’s Note: I penned this article on August, 17th, 2018, not knowing how quickly things would accelerate from here. I hope you are doing what you need to do to keep your mind free from the propaganda, toxicity, and censorship out there. 

At its core, consciousness is the awareness of being aware. This is extraordinarily relevant to today’s conversation about internet censorship being openly carried out by big tech and big government.

You see, when looking at this from the microcosmic level, that is, exploring the vastness of the inner worlds, increasing consciousness is about digging deep with open eyes to uncover the forces, drivers, baggage, patterns, and programming that influences one’s self. It’s about untangling all of this in order to evolve into one’s highest potential.

Extrapolating this to the macrocosmic, the adage ‘as above, so below – as within, so without,’ is key.

When looking at the outer world with the aim of expanding our consciousness of it, we must also dig deep with open eyes. We must sideline the fear inherent in this sort of exploration, and allow many friendly and unfriendly truths to sink into one’s awareness of the world around us. In order to make the best choices for ourselves, this view must be as broad and as complete as possible.

In 2013, author and researcher Graham Hancock introduced to the current zeitgeist the notion of a war on consciousness.

His perspective was centered around the war on drugs and the development of an international police state. In order to achieve this level of totalitarian control, our perspective must be restricted. And our perception of human potential must not be allowed to move beyond the current socio-economic and political realities.

Hancock suggests that in order to continue to evolve, people must be allowed to follow their innate human drive to seek altered states of consciousness, where guidance and inspiration can be found in abundance.

“But there are many other states of consciousness that the amazing and mysterious human brain is capable of embracing, and it appears to be a natural human urge, as deep-rooted as our urges for food, sex, and nurturing relationships, to seek out and explore such “altered states of consciousness.” A surprisingly wide range of methods and techniques (from breathing exercises, to meditation, to fasting, to hypnosis, to rhythmic music, to extended periods of vigorous dancing, etc.) is available to help us to achieve this goal, but there is no doubt that the consumption of those plants and substances called “drugs” in our societies is amongst the most effective and efficient means available to mankind to explore these profoundly altered states of consciousness.” ~Graham Hancock

Hancock was primarily focused on the use of psychedelics and shamanic plant medicines which are renowned for their ability to smash the illusions on which contemporary capitalist culture is based, and he understood the very practical ways in which this can be controlled. It’s as simple as locking people up into physical cages and terrorizing the rest of the population.

Fast forward five years and the West is witnessing a remarkable new offensive in the war on consciousness, this time in the arena of information awareness.

When a group of people gets together and conspires to deliberately restrict access to points-of-view, opinions, ideas, personalities, and information, then those people are engaged in a struggle to control other’s perception of the world.

Their aim is to control awareness of the diversity of possibilities in how the world is perceived. To shut down imagination.

To control your consciousness of the world we all share.

Doing so allows them to herd everyone else onto the same playing field with the same rules.

This struggle is representative of the Archonic forces at play in our world. Meaning that at its root, the struggle is a spiritual one. It revolves entirely on your individual courage to think beyond the corral, to transcend the thought diktat, and to fearlessly continue to explore ideas and truths which resonate with you and help you to make sense of the world.

This is about the struggle to maintain personal sovereignty of mind and spirit because it is precisely this inner freedom and fearlessness that makes one impossible to control.

About the Author

Dylan Charles is the editor of Waking Times and host of The Battered Souls Podcast, both dedicated to ideas of personal transformation, societal awakening, and planetary renewal. His personal journey is deeply inspired by shamanic plant medicines and the arts of Kung Fu, Qi Gong, and Yoga. After seven years of living in Costa Rica, he now lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where he practices Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and enjoys spending time with family. He has written hundreds of articles, reaching and inspiring millions of people around the world.

This article (Censorship is the New Front in the War on Consciousness) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Dylan Charles and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement




Individual Rights and Freedoms Under Siege in Era of COVID

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | The Defender

In a letter to 100,000 lawyers, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense (CHD) chairman and chief legal counsel, urges his fellow attorneys to read “Protecting Individual Rights in the Era of COVID-19,” a special report prepared by the CHD team.

The report explores the legal rights to informed consent, bodily integrity, the right to refuse unwanted medical interventions, religious expression, and autonomy. All of these rights will be “dramatically constricted” if employers, states, and/or the federal government impose vaccine mandates.

Dear Colleague,

The COVID-19 pandemic has proven an opportunity of convenience for totalitarian elements who have put individual rights and freedoms globally under siege. A medical cartel composed of the pharmaceutical industry, government regulators, financial houses, and telecom and internet billionaires are systematically obliterating freedom of speech and assembly, religious worship, property rights, jury trial, due process, and — ultimately — America’s exemplary democracy.

That’s why I am sending you this new Special Report, “Protecting Individual Rights in the Era of COVID-19.”

As a fellow lawyer who has practiced in our country’s courts for more than 40 years, I am alarmed by the growing power of global corporations to overwhelm our justice system, obliterate our constitutional liberty, and destroy public health. Throughout my career as a litigator, law professor, public advocate, and author, I have worked to hold corporate giants and government institutions accountable. My life’s work has provided me with a unique perspective on our individual rights to clean air, clean water, unobstructed access to the commons, and our rights to make our own decisions about our bodies.

As chairman and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), I have now dedicated myself to protecting children’s health by ending harmful environmental exposures to children, ending the exploding chronic disease epidemic that has debilitated over half of the American kids born after 1989, and to hold those responsible accountable.

A 2006 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) study found that 54% of America’s children today have chronic health conditions — allergies, ADHD, autism, eczema, asthma, obesity, autoimmune conditions, and more. When I was growing up, most of these conditions were rare or unknown. When I was a boy, I received three vaccines. Today, children receive 72 mandated doses of 16 vaccines, prior to age 18. A mountain of peer-reviewed studies points to vaccines as the primary culprit in this public health calamity. That isn’t stopping our health authorities from mandating more hugely subsidized, shoddily tested, zero-liability vaccines for children. Our vaccine safety program falls dangerously short of what our children deserve.

The COVID-19 pandemic has allowed captive corporate regulators to hold the population hostage to justify the transfer of $45 billion of taxpayer money to pharmaceutical companies to finance a gold rush of new vaccines.

Protecting individual rights in the era of COVID-19 is essential 

I urge you to read this short legal dossier, “Protecting Individual Rights in the Era of COVID-19”, with an open mind and to draw your own conclusion about the legal and ethical implications of one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates for zero-liability, heavily subsidized mandatory vaccines.

Current vaccine mandates now require most school children to receive between 50-75 shots just to attend school. A vaccine-injured child, or adult, cannot sue the healthcare provider or the vaccine producer — but rather must go to a rigged national injury compensation program to sue the very government that ordered vaccine compliance in the first place. After studying this subject for years, I am more horrified than ever by the system’s pervasive corruption.

Given existing federal legislation and judicial precedents, it is all but impossible to hold vaccine manufacturers or healthcare providers accountable for vaccine injury in the courts. Vaccine injuries are not rare — HHS’s own studies show that the agency claims that injuries only occur with “1 in a million” vaccines is a mendacious canard. The true injury rate is actually 1 in every 39 vaccines, according to the Federal Agency for Health Research Quality.

Problems with vaccine safety aren’t isolated just to children 

Federal and State officials are considering mandates for the new COVID-19 vaccine. The New York State Bar Association, an organization for which I have great respect, has given its imprimatur to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all New Yorkers if “experts” deem that necessary. But those experts are the main regulators from captured public health agencies with pervasive and corrupt financial entanglements with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

The pharma-controlled media’s advice that we “trust the experts” is anti-democratic and anti-science. You and I know that “experts” can differ on scientific questions and that their opinions can vary in accordance with and demands of politics, power, and financial self-interest. In every lawsuit, leading, highly credentialed experts from opposite sides routinely offer diametrically antithetical positions based on the same set of facts. The trouble is that today, in the political arena, dissenting voices that question government policies and corporate proclamations are silenced by censorship and vilification.

In this special report, our CHD Team explores the legal rights to informed consent, bodily integrity, the right to refuse unwanted medical interventions, religious expression, and autonomy. All of these rights will be dramatically constricted if employers, states, and/or the federal government impose vaccine mandates.

I hope that “Protecting Individual Rights in the Era of COVID-19” can help you work with any future clients as you navigate the uncertain COVID-19/vaccine mandates landscape.

Sincerely yours,

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Chairman, Children’s Health Defense




Billionaires Became ONE TRILLION DOLLARS Richer in 2020

By Really Graceful | Really Graceful

US Billionaires became 1 trillion dollars richer since the beginning of 2020. How did they do it? Let’s discuss.

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.




CEO’s GRILLED over Whistleblower Evidence of De-platforming Collusion Between Big Tech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugdJdcE6QlI

By Ben Swann | Truth in Media
In the above video, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri grills Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over reports of the “Tasks” Platform reportedly used by FB, Twitter and Google to coordinate censorship of people, ideas and hashtags

Editor’s note: As you have probably noticed, the communications giants, known as Facebook, Google, and Twitter have appeared before the United States Congress many times. They have had to face questions about their actions or inactions concerning various questions about content, freedom, censorship, et al. On November 17, 2020, they were answering more questions, including whether they collude with one another to determine which users, platforms and content should be limited or banned. The following video, by Ben Swann of Truth in Media, is very enlightening on this subject. Please let us know what you think of it in our comments section below. Thank you

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.