When journalists act as state propagandists https://t.co/AZ4iFmecX1
— Komrade Deplorable (@astroloupicus) May 27, 2023
Social control
“There’s now literally no reason to watch Fox News.”
In Kennedy’s view, Carlson “crossed a red line” in his April 19 monologue, during which he “broke TV’s two biggest rules.”
“Tucker told the truth about how greedy Pharma advertisers controlled TV news content, and he lambasted obsequious newscasters for promoting jabs they knew to be lethal and worthless,” Kennedy wrote in a tweet.
“Fox just demonstrated the terrifying power of Big Pharma,” he added.
During the said monologue, Carlson openly chastised the pharmaceutical industry and the media, including his own network, for taking in hundreds of millions of dollars from Big Pharma companies in exchange for “shill[ing] for their sketchy products on the air.”
“And as they did that,” Carlson went on to state, “they maligned anyone who was skeptical of those products. At the very least, this was a moral crime. It was disgusting, but it was universal. It happened across the American news media. They all did it.”
by: Ethan Huff
Friday, April 28, 2023
Weighing in on Tucker Carlson’s recent firing from Fox News, 2024 presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr. blamed “pharma advertisers” for pushing “deadly and ineffective” vaccines that Carlson refused to promote and even blasted as dangerous and unnecessary.
In Kennedy’s view, Carlson “crossed a red line” in his April 19 monologue, during which he “broke TV’s two biggest rules.”
“Tucker told the truth about how greedy Pharma advertisers controlled TV news content, and he lambasted obsequious newscasters for promoting jabs they knew to be lethal and worthless,” Kennedy wrote in a tweet.
“Fox just demonstrated the terrifying power of Big Pharma,” he added.
During the said monologue, Carlson openly chastised the pharmaceutical industry and the media, including his own network, for taking in hundreds of millions of dollars from Big Pharma companies in exchange for “shill[ing] for their sketchy products on the air.”
“And as they did that,” Carlson went on to state, “they maligned anyone who was skeptical of those products. At the very least, this was a moral crime. It was disgusting, but it was universal. It happened across the American news media. They all did it.”
(Related: Check out what Kennedy had to say about his uncle’s assassination.)
Natural News was censored and blacklisted for the same reasons: we call out Big Pharma and its puppets
With guns blazing, Carlson continued to point out that the vast majority of everything “in public life is corrupt,” stating that there are “too many to count.”
“The question is: who is telling the truth?” Carlson further said. “There are not many of those.”
“One of them is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Robert Kennedy knew early that the covid vaccines were both ineffective and potentially dangerous, and he said so in public to the extent he was allowed. Science has since proven Robert F. Kennedy Jr. right. Unequivocally right.”
Instead of being rewarded for his honesty, Kennedy was vilified and censored, just like Carlson now has been at the hands of Fox, ironically enough. Kennedy, and now Carlson himself, have both been censored for daring to criticize media advertisers, which are largely dominated by pharmaceutical industry interests.
“He was censored because he dared to criticize their advertisers, the news media called Bobby Kennedy a Nazi, and then they attacked his family, but he kept doing it,” Carlson revealed in his last segment before getting axed by Fox.
“He was not intimidated and we were glad he wasn’t. This is one of those moments when it’s nice to have a truth teller around. It’s helpful because suddenly the stakes are very high.”
Carlson’s full segment is available for viewing at Infowars.com.
Keep in mind that Natural News, Brighteon, and other affiliated platforms have been blacklisted and censored for years for doing the same things Carlson and Kennedy have: telling the truth.
Check out the following video from Carlson announcing Kennedy’s run for president in 2024:
“Tucker makes news with his monologues,” tweeted conservative commentator Matt Walsh in response to Carlson’s firing from Fox. “People talk about them.”
“Nobody talks about Sean Hannity monologues. Fox is insane for letting that kind of cultural relevance go.”
Paul Joseph Watson of Summit News tweeted much more simply that “There’s now literally no reason to watch Fox News.”
“Well, there’s still the Pfizer commercials,” responded someone else jokingly about how Fox News is little more than Big Pharma news – which, by the way, we have been warning you about for years.
The latest news about Big Pharma’s control over the media through advertising can be found at Fascism.news.
Sources for this article include:
Narrowing permitted ideas on both left and right, one unsuitable voice at a time
People like AOC can couch these moves in terms of prevention of violence all they want, but it’s just too conspicuous that what’s left of major commercial media also happens to be much engaged in the trumpeting of government messaging, to the point where the people reading the news are government officials. It was once considered healthy for the press to play to mass audiences and position itself as a skeptical thorn in the side of officialdom. There is no institution like that left in American life. What we have instead is an increasingly pissed-off population that needs to look about eighty results down in every Google search to find its point of view represented. Who thinks that situation is going to hold?
https://www.racket.news/p/america-the-single-opinion-cult
APR 27, 2023
That interview says it all, doesn’t it?
Not long ago I was writing in defense of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When she first entered Congress as an inner-city twenty-something who’d knocked off longtime insider Joe Crowley with a Sandersian policy profile, her own party’s establishment ridiculed her as a lefty Trump. Nancy Pelosi scoffed that her win just meant voters “made a choice in one district,” so “let’s not get carried away.” Ben Ritz, director of the Progressive Policy Institute, an offshoot of the old Democratic Leadership Council, groused, “Oh, please, she just promised everyone a bunch of free stuff.”
This was before AOC decided to be the next Pelosi, instead of the next Sanders. The above sit-down on MSNBC shows the transformation. Having shed the mantle of an outsider who shook the old guard with online savvy, she appeared in soft light for a softball “interview,” by a literal Biden official (Inside With Jen Psaki is as close as you can get to a formal dissolution of the line between White House and media). In it, she seemed to argue for the outlaw of Fox News. “We have very real issues with what is permissible on air,” she said, adding people like Tucker Carlson are “very clearly” guilty of “incitement to violence,” a problem in light of “federal regulation in terms of what’s allowed on air and what isn’t.”
I was attracted to liberalism as a young person precisely because it didn’t want to ban things. Every liberal morality play in the seventies, eighties and nineties featured a finger-wagging moralist who couldn’t stomach an obscene joke (Jerry Falwell, over a Hustler parody), “obscene” art (Cincinnati’s Contemporary Arts Center, over Robert Mapplethorpe’s photos), “objectionable” music (Tipper Gore, in the now-seems-tame record-labeling furor), or unpredictable humor (NBC, in its attempts to put Richard Pryor on tape delay for Saturday Night Live). Pryor’s favored writer Paul Mooney objected so much to all the hoops they had to jump through to be allowed on air, he ended up writing a parody “job interview” skit that sent SNL’s ratings soaring, though ironically it would probably never air today:
Hollywood made self-congratulating feature films about nearly every one of those speech clashes, from The People vs. Larry Flynt to Dirty Pictures (starring James Woods, about the Cincinnati episode!) to Parental Advisory. The movie Field of Dreams features Ray Kinsella’s wife Annie telling off “IRATE MOTHER” in a school library debate about banning writer Terrence Mann, with Annie saying after: “Fascist. I’d like to ease her pain!” (The actual book Shoeless Joe featured J.D. Salinger, one of America’s most-censored authors). From To Kill a Mockingbird to Dead Man Walking liberalism celebrated the belief that truth, tolerance, and forgiveness are the way to reach closed minds. I mentioned this before, but Rob Reiner’s The American President — a naked hagiography of Clintonian politics — came to a climax with “President Andrew Shepherd” defending his flag-burning girlfriend’s honor, saying:
You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing…
That scene, which sounds like it should apply to any Democrat thinking about someone like Carlson, would become ironic later. Back to AOC and Fox: like so many other things in America, the marketplace of ideas is no longer a market. Voices with organic appeal are artificially restricted. Watching “approved” news these days is like watching scab baseball: you know most of the players the crowds really want to see aren’t even in the dugout. By no means is this phenomenon confined to the right.
As far back as the spring of 2017, when Google introduced “Project Owl,” a new tool designed to “surface more authoritative content,” outlets like the World Socialist Web Site, Alternet, Truthdig, Democracy Now!, and Consortium News reported dramatic drops in audience. Wikileaks traffic plummeted (that site’s content is extremely difficult to access for a variety of reasons now). Years later, the Wall Street Journal reported that Google employed “maintainers” to tend to an “‘anti-misinformation’ blacklist” to prevent sites from “appearing in Google News and other products.”
The next big event was the removal of Alex Jones from Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Spotify. No fan of Jones, I was struck by how quickly critics moved to looking around for the next targets. Rob Reiner, the “acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil” auteur, said on MSNBC, “You have Fox, Breitbart, Sinclair, and Alex Jones, which has now been taken off of Facebook, thank God…” Senator Chris Murphy said Jones was just the “tip of a giant iceberg” and “companies must do more than take down one website”:
Apple CEO Tim Cook insisted the Jones episode was not coordinated with the other firms, saying, “I’ve had no conversation. And to my knowledge, no one at Apple has.” Later stories like the Apple-Amazon squeeze of Parler ended the ruse that the major distribution platforms were not working together to create private agreements on speech, and the #TwitterFiles showed countless episodes of supposedly independent companies engaging in seeming anticompetitive behavior, coordinating on everything from election “misinformation” to pandemic messaging and holding regular “industry meetings” with government to discuss moderation issues.
The attendees of the call below include Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Reddit, Pinterest, Wikimedia, even Medium, gathering to hear the “USG” list “watch-outs” and other threats:
In the six years since “Project Owl,” think about how many voices have been fully or partially removed from public view. True-blue “progressives” won’t mourn many, from Jones to Donald Trump to Carlson to RT and Sputnik to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Add the deamplification or algorithmic blacklisting of sites like Truthdig, Wikileaks and third-party candidates like Jill Stein, the removal under government pressure of content from people like Joe Rogan, and the seemingly endless advertiser boycotts of various other classes of badthinker, and the field of view has been drastically narrowed.
The one undeniable fact about Carlson’s show is that it was materially different from other Fox content. The product was not the same as what you heard in the Hannity slot. As was the case with Donald Trump, you don’t need to cheer the message, or believe it’s sincere, to recognize that this differentiation exists. For instance, the Washington Post this week cited “people familiar with” Rupert Murdoch’s thinking in saying Carlson’s ongoing eye-rolling about the war in Ukraine, and use of terms like “pimp” to describe Volodymyr Zelensky, had “drawn furious blowback from powerful Republicans who see U.S. support for Ukraine as a bulwark in a fight for freedom and democracy — some of whom had Murdoch’s ear.”
Removing Carlson from Fox makes the rest of conservative media more homogeneous. The constant policing of content in blue media accomplishes the same. When the American Prospect ran a feature about Carlson that merely had a sarcastic headline (“The Smuggest Man On Air”) and was only critical roughly every second or third paragraph, filling in the rest of the space with detached analysis of what made Carlson’s show successful (e.g. a willingness to “mock ruling elites”), the magazine was hit with the usual grab-bag of Scanners-style head-exploding from a handful of reporters. This immediately caused two Prospect editors to roll over, throw their writers overboard, and replace the mildly different piece with the usual wire-to-wire bloodcurdling diatribe against Carlson as a “neofascist” “threat to democracy.”
I like and respect editor David Dayen, but a sequence like this sends a message to every writer that you’d better come at topics in a certain way if you want to be bylined. Liberals in the Bush years used to mock the metronome predictability of Fox, but the same kind of thing has been going on what used to be my side of the aisle for so long, most mainstream media products are basically identical. Everyone with a noticeably different point of view gets moved out, even if they’re obvious audience assets, with Glenn Greenwald (pushed out of the Intercept for wanting to publish what turned out to be the correct angle on the Hunter Biden laptop story) and Lee Fang being notable examples.
It doesn’t take a genius to see where this is going. To paraphrase Mencken, you don’t have to think Carlson’s motivations were noble to see that his rhetoric on Ukraine stood out in the current TV environment like a wart on a bald head. The rest of the corporate press, be it left or right, will now be a parade of generals and security experts whose argument won’t be about whether or not the U.S. should be involved in Ukraine, but which party is most committed and whose strategy will lead to Putin’s defeat faster. We are moving back toward an era of two homogeneous messaging landscapes that will intersect on national security issues, with the beaten antiwar left a fading memory and the isolationist right fired, under indictment, or banned.
People like AOC can couch these moves in terms of prevention of violence all they want, but it’s just too conspicuous that what’s left of major commercial media also happens to be much engaged in the trumpeting of government messaging, to the point where the people reading the news are government officials. It was once considered healthy for the press to play to mass audiences and position itself as a skeptical thorn in the side of officialdom.
There is no institution like that left in American life. What we have instead is an increasingly pissed-off population that needs to look about eighty results down in every Google search to find its point of view represented. Who thinks that situation is going to hold?
A former US Army psychological warfare officer says that Tucker Carlson was fired by Fox News because of the regime’s agenda to maintain an “uninformed semi lobotomized quasi retarded population.”
BY TYLER DURDEN
FRIDAY, APR 28, 2023
Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,
The remarks were made by US counter-terror expert Scott Bennett.
Carlson and Fox News “parted ways” on Monday with speculation still raging as to the specific reason why the network canned its highest-rated and most popular host.
According to Bennett, Carlson posed too much of a threat to institutional power because he turned Americans into proper “researchers and thinkers”.
Carlson offered an “intellectualism, truthfulness, and an analytical depth that no other news personality has ever done in the history of the United States as far back as I can remember,” said Bennett.
Tucker needed to be “silenced” because he represented too big a threat to the “powers and principalities, institutions and agendas that seek an unenlightened uninformed semi lobotomized quasi retarded population that do not question, do not research, do not analyze but simply digest and follow instructions,” according to Bennett.
“Tucker Carlson also exposed the fraud and money laundering racketeering crimes of FTX and the Democrat Party in Ukraine involving the United States government. He exposed the US biochemical labs in Ukraine and their connection to the Democrat Party, President Barack Obama, Vice President Biden, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Bill Gates, and other US government agencies and pharmaceutical companies,” Bennett told Sputnik.
The ex-host’s anti-regime rhetoric “could no longer be tolerated by the corrupt American media and political establishment,” said Bennett, adding that his exit signals “the death of American media”.
The former US army psyops officer suggested that Senator Chuck Schumer had threatened to utilize the CIA and the FBI to deploy secret government operations against Tucker to get him off air unless he was fired.
Schumer previously called for Carlson to be taken off air after he broadcast footage showing the January 6 ‘riot’ leaders were actually allowed into the Capitol and chaperoned around by authorities.
As we highlighted earlier, one of the reasons behind Tucker’s dismissal is a lawsuit fired by former show producer Abby Grossberg, who claims she was bullied and subjected to sexist and anti-semitic harassment.
However, Grossberg’s own lawyer revealed that she has never even met Carlson.
* * *
Establishment outlets were perfectly fine with the social media scarlet letter when it was handed to their “undesirable” counterparts
https://www.rt.com/news/575027-western-media-hates-twitter/
Photos of the CBC building at 250 Front St West in Toronto to illustrate the release of the Rubin report today. © Colin McConnell/Toronto Star via Getty Images
Recently, some media outlets have quit Twitter over what they see as unjust labelling, which leads to the question – where was their outrage when the same rules were being applied to their competition?
Where was the Western fury when the social media platform was slapping labels of state affiliation or funding on media linked to Russia and China, like RT? Nowhere to be found. How about when the platform was extending that same labelling to individual journalists contributing to those platforms? Again, silent. It’s only now that they can’t object strongly enough. So what changed?
The platform’s ‘newish’ owner, Elon Musk, woke up one morning recently and decided to level the playing field by slapping Western media recipients of state funding with the “government-funded” label. Britain’s BBC has protested its tagging, America’s National Public Radio rage-quit the platform over its new designation, and Canada’s CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) suspended posting. “Twitter can be a powerful tool for our journalists to communicate with Canadians, but it undermines the accuracy and professionalism of the work they do to allow our independence to be falsely described in this way,” CBC spokesman Leon Mar said.
Western media outlets object to these tags being applied to them because they’ve long accepted the negative connotation that such tags carry when they are exclusively applied to media or journalists linked to Russia or China. They didn’t care that the integrity of those journalistic competitors was smeared by a scarlet letter. They didn’t appreciate or support the coverage offered by those labelled platforms that offer alternative information and analysis to the mainstream Western establishment agenda and related narratives.
India’s amended IT rules raise self-censorship fear for media outlets
It apparently never occurred to the Western press – even to the CBC, which received $1.24 billion in 2021-2022 from the Canadian federal government – that they could be next in line for this kind of labelling. At least not enough for them to stand up against such labels. Why? A likely explanation is that they felt that social media platforms like Twitter would always fall in line with the Western establishment agenda and narrative. Also, that it was just an extension of the ongoing efforts to marginalize geopolitical competitors and alternative sources of information that might challenge them. Labelling of Western media makes no sense in that context, so they likely presumed that they were safe.
However, Musk came along and opened Pandora’s Box, with Western media now haggling with him over precisely how much funding they ought to be able to get from the state without being slapped with a “state-affiliated” moniker. “Canadian Broadcasting Corp said they’re ‘less than 70% government-funded,’ so we corrected the label,” Musk tweeted, stating that he had amended CBC’s label to “69% Government-funded media.”
Musk has also managed to make Western politicians denounce the tags, which they previously supported when it was used against press sources that they didn’t like. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hysterically played the class warfare card in defense of the CBC, accusing Conservative Party opposition leader Pierre Poilievre of cozying up to US billionaires (an obvious reference to Musk). Poilievre had written a letter to Twitter drawing attention to the fact that the CBC shouldn’t be left out of the labelling spree.
“We must protect Canadians against disinformation and manipulation by state media. That is why I’m asking @Twitter @elonmusk to accurately label CBC as ‘government-funded media’,” tweeted Poilievre.
Canadian conservatives routinely accuse the public broadcaster of kowtowing to a left-leaning establishment agenda, and marking it as associated with the current Trudeau-led government would effectively assist in its marginalization.
Twitter unveils ‘hate speech’ shadow ban policy
“CBC officially exposed as ‘government-funded media’,” Poilievre tweeted after the labelling was applied. “Now people know that it is Trudeau propaganda, not news.” Sounds exactly like the kind of rhetoric that Trudeau and the entire Western establishment have used against foreign news competitors. And now it’s being used against those they like.
But hey, Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter, so he can do what he wants with his own private company, right? At least that was the argument made by those who supported banning dissenters and activists of all kinds under Twitter’s previous establishment-friendly leadership.
Who’s to say that the tagging will end here? If anyone at Twitter digs deeper, they’ll learn, for example, that the Canadian media – even privately held – is largely government-funded and subsidized to a far larger extent than meets the eye. And what about the corporate US news media that’s largely concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires – 15 of them, according to Forbes – and whose interests may or may not be entwined with special interests that drive Washington’s agenda?
This entire labelling rabbit hole could have been entirely avoided. If Western media outlets, politicians, and journalists had stood up for press freedom and free speech when the targets were their competition. Maybe they wouldn’t now find themselves in exactly the same firing line.
The hypocrisy of this guy is gargantuan. I imagine you would be jailed for posting this on Facebook, his own creation.
GOP AG Jeff Landry of Louisiana released a document last week showing clearly that the regime pressured Facebook to censor Carlson after he said in no uncertain terms what most Americans knew — that the COVID-19 vaccines “don’t work,” as evidenced by the fact that so many vaccinated people caught COVID again, including many of our elected leaders (and Biden).
by: JD Heyes
Friday, January 13, 2023
The discovery phase of a lawsuit against the Biden regime brought by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana has revealed a stunning bombshell — the White House has been busted for being directly involved in pressuring social media companies to censor Americans over COVID-19 vaccine views and facts the regime did not want anyone to hear.
One of the people the Biden administration wanted to be censored was top-rated Fox News host Tucker Carlson, one of several people who were singled out by the regime within a few months after Joe Biden was installed in the Oval Office, according to documents that the attorneys general have discovered and revealed.
GOP AG Jeff Landry of Louisiana released a document last week showing clearly that the regime pressured Facebook to censor Carlson after he said in no uncertain terms what most Americans knew — that the COVID-19 vaccines “don’t work,” as evidenced by the fact that so many vaccinated people caught COVID again, including many of our elected leaders (and Biden).
“Since we’ve been on the phone — the top post about vaccines today is [T]ucker Carlson saying they don’t work. Yesterday it was Tomi Lehren [sic] saying she won’t take one,” White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty said in an April 14, 2021 email, which the AG posted on Twitter.
“This is exactly why I want to know what ‘Reduction’ actually looks like — if ‘reduction’ means ‘pumping our most vaccine hesitant audience with [T]ucker Carlson saying it doesn’t work’ then … I’m not sure it’s reduction!” Flaherty continued, revealing fully that he wanted Carlson to be censored.
Conservative Brief noted further:
Landry and then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, sued the Biden administration in May, alleging that officials worked with social media companies to suppress information regarding the 2020 election, the pandemic, and other issues.
A federal court ordered the Biden administration to hand over relevant documents in July.
In response, the unknown Facebook employee said they were “running this down now.”
On his show’s Facebook page, Carlson wrote in September 2020: “Facebook is working hard to make sure you’re unable to see our latest post regarding a coronavirus whistleblower. They don’t want you sharing the video, and they are limiting the number of people who can view it. This is censorship.”
But it’s no wonder Facebook was bending to this pressure. In December, Democratic lawmakers wrote a letter to Facebook’s parent company, Meta, demanding new censorship and appearing to threaten the company with new regulatory legislation if the platform followed Elon Musk’s direction in reducing censorship protocols for Twitter.
The letter shocked Georgetown University law professor and attorney Jonathan Turley.
“With the restoration of free speech protections on Twitter, panic has grown on the left that its control over social media could come to an end. Now, some of the greatest advocates of censorship in Congress are specifically warning Facebook not to follow Twitter in restoring free speech to its platform,” he wrote in a column for Fox News.
In a chilling letter from Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., André Carson, D-Ind., Kathy Castor, D-Fla., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Facebook was given a not-so-subtle threat that reducing its infamous censorship system will invite congressional action. The letter to Meta’s president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, is written on congressional stationery ‘as part of our ongoing oversight efforts,’” he added.
“With House Republicans pledging to investigate social media censorship when they take control in January, these four Democratic members are trying to force Facebook to ‘recommit’ to censoring opposing views and to make election censorship policies permanent. Otherwise, they suggest, they may be forced to exercise oversight into any move by Facebook to ‘alter or rollback certain misinformation policies,’” Turley noted further.
Got that? Democrats, not Republicans, are the party of tyranny, censorship, and unconstitutional limits on speech, as they have once again proven.
Sources include:
The science of modern propaganda arguably got its start over a century ago during World War I when a young Edward Bernays was recruited to help sell the conflict to a reluctant American populace, after which he took what he’d learned on that front and folded it into a lifetime of work on the study of mass-scale psychological manipulation. That was when propaganda, as we know it today, came into being, with the scientific method applied to the task of refining techniques for manipulating large-scale human behavior using modern media distribution. Those methods have been in research and development this entire time, and have advanced at least as much as our other instruments of warfare have advanced since World War I. But that wasn’t the beginning of mass-scale psychological manipulation by the powerful. That has been going on since the dawn of civilization.
Reading by Tim Foley.
Jan 9, 2023
This article was originally published by Patrick Carroll at The Foundation for Economic Education.
There’s an alternative to government licensing, and it already exists.
On January 3, Jordan Peterson used his recently-reinstated Twitter account to alert the world of a new development in his seemingly-endless battle with mainstream institutions.
“The Ontario College of Psychologists has demanded that I submit myself to mandatory social-media communication retraining with their experts for, among other crimes, retweeting Pierre Poilievre and criticizing Justin Trudeau and his political allies,” Peterson wrote.
According to Peterson, the College’s actions were prompted by roughly a dozen complaints submitted over the past four years. Notably, none of the complaints were brought by people Peterson interacted with in a clinical context. Rather, they seem to be motivated by political disagreements and only feature vague accusations of harm resulting from some of Peterson’s social media rhetoric.
“What exactly have I done that is so seriously unprofessional?” Peterson asks in a National Post column. “It is hard to tell with some of the complaints (one involved the submission of the entire transcript of a three-hour discussion on the Joe Rogan podcast), but here are some examples.”
He goes on to list some of the accusations of unprofessional conduct levied against him, which include retweeting a comment about the unnecessary severity of the Covid-19 lockdowns, criticizing Justin Trudeau and other politicians, and making a joke about the prime minister of New Zealand.
Peterson has indicated he is eager to release all the details of the accusations so the public can see the evidence and judge for themselves who is in the right, but the College has thus far not given permission to this effect.
To atone for his errors, Peterson was told he needs to take a mandatory social-media retraining course at his own expense. The course will be considered finished when the College’s experts are satisfied with his progress.
Naturally, Peterson refused to take the course. As a result, he now faces a mandatory public disciplinary hearing and the possible suspension of his clinical license. If he loses his license, he will be barred from practicing clinical psychology in Ontario and from representing himself as a psychologist.
A Tool for Censorship
This isn’t the first time the licensing system has been weaponized against professionals with unpopular views. In an infamous 2021 statement from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario—the provincial regulatory body for medical doctors—doctors were effectively told to get on board with the official Covid narrative or risk losing their license.
“Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public,” the statement reads, “and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing, and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action when warranted.”
These were not empty threats. One Ontario physician, Dr. Patrick Phillips, had his license suspended in May 2022 for “inappropriate” COVID-19 treatments and advice.
As these and many other examples make clear, the licensing system can be a powerful weapon for censorship. And it’s no mystery why. Professionals need licenses to legally practice their profession. Even if there are relatively few suspensions in practice, the mere fact that your license could be suspended has a huge impact. Self-censorship is likely rampant in fields like law, medicine, and psychology on account of this threat.
The Underlying Problem: Government Licensing
Though the administrators of licensing systems certainly carry much of the blame for intimidating professionals into conformity, the root of the problem is the licensing regulations themselves. If these were private clubs that were threatening to revoke membership, it wouldn’t really matter. The reason this is such a big deal is that these bodies are empowered by the government to strip professionals of their livelihoods. If licensing laws were repealed, these regulatory bodies would have no teeth, and thus no ability to threaten and coerce professionals.
The objection, of course, is that we need licensing to protect consumers from unethical and incompetent practitioners. But why should the government get to decide who is unethical and incompetent? Why not you, the consumer?
“Consumers are ignorant,” we are told. “They need an expert to help them verify competence.”
Fair enough, but that doesn’t mean the government needs to get involved. There’s an alternative system that removes the coercive element while still allowing consumers to verify that the services they buy are trustworthy. That alternative is free-market certification. Anyone who cares about government censorship would do well to at least familiarize themselves with this alternative to the status quo.
Let’s briefly explore how it could work.
How a Free-Market Certification System Could Replace Government Licensing
Though a free-market certification system could take many forms, one form that would likely emerge is a series of voluntary professional associations. Though professionals would be legally allowed to work without an affiliation to a known association, their potential customers will be looking for indicators of trustworthiness, so professionals will find it to their advantage to join these groups. Professional associations like these already exist for precisely this reason in all sorts of unregulated professions, such as Osteopathy.
An association for psychologists might call themselves the Psychological Professionals of Ontario (PPO). To become a member, PPO would have certain requirements you must fulfill, such as graduating from a school they approve of and perhaps passing a test demonstrating to them that you know what you’re doing. Once you’ve met these requirements, PPO would grant you their certificate of approval (membership) which you can then use when advertising to potential clients. PPO would also likely have a series of reasonable rules that their members must abide by in order to keep their certificate. Practitioners who transgress those rules can be kicked out of the association. This could make life somewhat difficult for these practitioners, but—and this is the key difference—it doesn’t interfere with their legal right to practice.
If PPO has a good reputation for high standards, consumers can be confident that a PPO-certified psychologist will be ethical and competent. If PPO gives certificates to psychologists who turn out to be poor practitioners, however, or if they are arbitrary and capricious in their judgments, their reputation could take a hit, and members might move to a competing association with a better track record. Professional associations, then, like any organization on the free market, will live and die by their competence and probity, and will constantly face accountability from the market.
So let’s say I live in such a society without professional licensing and I decide to see a psychologist. Clearly, I won’t just pay the first person on the street who adopts that title. Instead, I might ask friends for recommendations or look online for established practitioners who have been in business for a while. Once I have a short list, I would probably look up consumer reviews on the people I’m considering and look up their professional affiliations. Armed with this information, I’d make a choice. I might not get the best person, but chances are I’ll find someone decent. At the very least, I’ll easily be able to avoid gross incompetence.
“That makes sense,” you might say, “but what about the people who don’t do their homework? Aren’t they at risk of hiring someone incompetent?”
Yes, I suppose they are. But this is hardly for lack of information. They had ample opportunity to verify the qualifications of the seller if they wanted to.
There comes a point where we simply need to say Caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. At the end of the day, it’s the buyer’s responsibility to make sure they know what they’re getting into. And if they get hurt because they didn’t do their due diligence, that’s kind of on them. It’s not the government’s job to protect people from making bad personal choices, especially since what constitutes a “bad choice” is often a matter of contention, as it is in Peterson’s case.
“Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness,” Mises warned, “no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.”
The point is that consumers, not bureaucrats, should determine whose services will be bought on the market. And while it’s true that consumers generally know little about the field in question, professional associations, consumer reviews, and word of mouth are beyond sufficient to provide them with the necessary information to judge whether a given practitioner will be good at their job.
Peterson’s ability to practice psychotherapy should depend on his track record and reputation, not on the whims of bureaucrats. The same goes for every other professional, no matter their field.
These so-called “doctors” whipped everyone into a fear frenzy. Their tweets would get tens of thousands of retweets and engagement daily. The “doctors” posed as ER physicians and were part of the LGBTQ community in some way.
They created this hellish/apocalyptic scenario that made it sound as if bodies were piling up in the streets. Well, this probably won’t come as a huge surprise to you, but those popular “ER doctors” were fake.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-01-07-er-doctors-on-twitter-covid-fake.html
by: JD Heyes
Saturday, January 07, 2023
The advent of social media has become the bane of modern society, as it has created a world that literally does not exist, for the most part.
Gone are the days of “MySpace” and the early years of Facebook, when users simply posted status updates, photos from places they visited, recipes, and other things to keep in touch with family and friends.
Today’s version of social media exists to foist lies, propaganda, and false narratives on tens of millions of people by the minute, used by government and some in the private sector for non-stop psychological warfare, as Twitter boss Elon Musk has recently revealed with his dumps of “Twitter Files.”
Now, we learn that Twitter was used to spread massive lies about the COVID-19 pandemic in order to scare the public into complying with one tyrannical mandate after another.
As Revolver News reports, a pair of ‘E.R. doctors’ who claimed that they witnessed dozens of COVID deaths per shift were not even real people:
If you were on Twitter back when the COVID “fear-mongering” was at its peak, you’ll likely remember the “Twitter doctors” who popped up, seemingly out of thin air, claiming they were losing hordes of patients to COVID every single day.
These so-called “doctors” whipped everyone into a fear frenzy. Their tweets would get tens of thousands of retweets and engagement daily.
The “doctors” posed as ER physicians and were part of the LGBTQ community in some way. They created this hellish/apocalyptic scenario that made it sound as if bodies were piling up in the streets.
Well, this probably won’t come as a huge surprise to you, but those popular “ER doctors” were fake.
The site quoted a bombshell report in the San Francisco Standard, which revealed the false flag operation.
“Last month, Dr. Robert Honeyman lost their sister to Covid. They wrote about it on Twitter and received dozens of condolences, over 4,000 retweets and 43,000 likes,” the outlet reported. “Exactly one month later, on Dec. 12, Honeyman wrote that another tragedy had befallen their family.”
“Sad to announce that my husband has entered a coma after being in hospital with Covid. The doctor is unsure if he will come out,” they tweeted. “This year has been the toughest of my life losing my sister to this virus. This is the first time in my life I don’t see light at the end of the tunnel.”
Once more, the condolences and well-wishes poured in — Americans are a compassionate lot, after all, regardless of what lying leftist Democrats often say. But again, none of this was true.
It was all fake.
“Honeyman wasn’t real,” the San Francisco Standard reported. “The transgender ‘Doctor of Sociology and Feminist studies’ with a ‘keen interest in poetry” who used they/them pronouns was, in fact, a stock photo described on DepositPhotos, a royalty-free image site, as ‘Smiling happy, handsome Latino man outside—headshot portrait.’
“Their supposedly comatose husband, Dr. Patrick C. Honeyman, was also fake. His Twitter photo had been stolen from an insurance professional in Wayne, Indiana,” the outlet’s report noted further.
But it gets worse: The outlet noted that the two phony doctors, whose accounts continually urged caution about COVID-19 and pushed for lockdowns, masking, business closures, etc., were part of a larger network of at least four fake accounts that promoted alleged ties to the LGBTQ community. The accounts also posted heated criticisms of anyone who was viewed as not taking the pandemic seriously enough or who pushed back on the tyrannical measures.
And interestingly enough, the scam was uncovered by a liberal writer.
“The fake doctors were uncovered by Joshua Gutterman Tranen, a self-described “gay writer” pursuing a master’s of fine arts at Bennington College. He saw Robert Honeyman’s tweet about their husband being in a coma, noticed people he followed also followed them, and thought that they might be part of the LGBTQ+ academic community,” the outlet reported.
“But after 10 minutes of googling, Gutterman Tranen concluded that Robert Honeyman’s photo was a stock image and their biography stretched boundaries of believability: an academic who left no traces on academic websites and had lost two family members to Covid in late 2022, despite masking and distancing,” the report stated.
Once again, social media was being used to push lies, false narratives, and propaganda, proving once again that the big tech companies are no doubt tied to the American deep state.
Sources include:
This same censorship agenda by both administrations was also imposed upon Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other Big Tech platforms, the same internal files show.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-01-02-twitter-files-rigged-covid-debate-truth-censored.html
by: Ethan Huff
Monday, January 02, 2023
The latest drop from the Twitter Files shows that the world’s most controversial social media platform rigged the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) debate to control the narrative.
It did this, according to journalist David Zweig, by censoring information that was true but inconvenient to U.S. government policy; discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed with the official government position; and suppressing ordinary users, including those who merely shared data from government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
While on assignment for The Free Press, Zweig was given access to internal files from Twitter that show both the Biden and Trump administrations “directly pressed Twitter executives to moderate the platform’s pandemic content according to their wishes.”
This same censorship agenda by both administrations was also imposed upon Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other Big Tech platforms, the same internal files show.
“The Trump White House, specifically Michael Kratsios, led the Trump Administration’s calls for help from the tech companies to combat misinformation,” one of the files stated.
“Areas of focus included conspiracies around 5G cell towers, runs on grocery stores, and misinformation that could stoke panic buying and behaviors.” (Related: Twitter only opposed censorship when doing so negatively affected Twitter.)
The Trump administration was especially focused on the issue of panic buying, probably because it did not want such activity to interfere with or damage its reputation while in office.
“Twitter, alongside several other tech companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, participated,” the files further said.
“Activities included a standing weekly call to share general trends and hosting a shared Microsoft Teams group. Some of the companies (not Twitter) gathered open-sources information from researchers. Our teams fed this information to the Twitter policy enforcement teams.”
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released advisory in July 2021 warning about “infodemic,” calling for more tech censorship of “misinformation”
The Biden regime, after being passed the baton from Trump and his people, continued to fight against online free speech.
Then-Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in July 2021 released a 22-page advisory about the “infodemic,” as the World Health Organization called it, that was spreading online. More needed to be done on social media, Murthy argued, to combat the “misinformation” that was spreading as a result of this infodemic.
“We are asking them to step up,” Murthy said at the time. “We can’t wait longer for them to take aggressive action.”
In private, Murthy and other government officials had already said these same things to Twitter and other tech platforms, pushing them to take action against online free speech – and particularly “anti-vaxxer accounts,” as Operation Warp Speed was in full swing at the time.
Of particular concern was Alex Berenson, whom we have cited here many times, because of his vocal skepticism against lockdowns, the “vaccines” and other tenets of the scamdemic.
The day after Murthy released his 22-page memo, Joe Biden himself publicly announced that social media companies were “killing people” by not censoring more information. Just hours later, Berenson’s Twitter account was locked, then permanently suspended a month later.
Berenson later sued and regained access to Twitter. And as part of that suit, Twitter was forced to provide certain internal communications about what had happened, revealing direct interference by the White House.
It turns out that Biden and his people were still “very angry” at Twitter for not taking more action against certain accounts, calling for more tyranny. Twitter, we now know, never fully complied with those demands, despite all the censorship that it did conspire to inflict upon users and their freedom of speech.
The latest news about the Twitter Files can be found at Censorship.news.
Sources for this article include:
…the FBI now declares us to be part of a disinformation danger that it is committed to stamping out — “conspiracy theorists” misleading the public simply by criticizing the bureau.
Dec 29, 2022
This article was originally published by Johnathan Turley at The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
Below is my column in the Hill on the need for a new “Church Committee” to investigate and reform the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after years of scandals involving alleged political bias. In response to criticism over its role in Twitter’s censorship system, the FBI lashed out against critics as “conspiracy theorists” spreading disinformation. However, it still refuses to supply new information on other companies, beyond Twitter, which it has paid to engage in censorship.
Here is the column:
“Conspiracy theorists … feeding the American public misinformation” is a familiar attack line for anyone raising free-speech concerns over the FBI’s role in social media censorship. What is different is that this attack came from the country’s largest law enforcement agency, the FBI — and, since the FBI has made combatting “disinformation” a major focus of its work, the labelling of its critics is particularly menacing.
Fifty years ago, the Watergate scandal provoked a series of events that transformed not only the presidency but federal agencies like the FBI. Americans demanded answers about the involvement of the FBI and other federal agencies in domestic politics. Ultimately, Congress not only investigated the FBI but later impaneled the Church Committee to investigate a host of other abuses by intelligence agencies.
A quick review of recent disclosures and controversies shows ample need for a new Church Committee:
The Russian investigations
The FBI previously was at the center of controversies over documented political bias. Without repeating the long history of the Russian influence scandal, FBI officials like Peter Strzok were fired after emails showed open bias against presidential candidate Donald Trump. The FBI ignored warnings that the so-called Steele dossier, largely funded by the Clinton campaign, was likely used by Russian intelligence to spread disinformation. It continued its investigation despite early refutations of key allegations or discrediting of sources.
Biden family business
The FBI has taken on the character of a Praetorian Guard when the Biden family has found itself in scandals.
For example, there was Hunter Biden’s handgun, acquired by apparently lying on federal forms. In 2018, the gun allegedly was tossed into a trash bin in Wilmington, Del., by Hallie Biden, the widow of Hunter’s deceased brother and with whom Hunter had a relationship at the time. Secret Service agents reportedly appeared at the gun shop for no apparent reason, and Hunter later said the matter would be handled by the FBI. Nothing was done despite the apparent violation of federal law.
Later, the diary of Hunter’s sister, Ashley, went missing. While the alleged theft normally would be handled as a relatively minor local criminal matter, the FBI launched a major investigation that continued for months to pursue those who acquired the diary, which reportedly contains embarrassing entries involving President Biden. Such a massive FBI deployment shocked many of us, but the FBI built a federal case against those who took possession of the diary.
Targeting Republicans and conservatives
Recently the FBI was flagged for targeting two senior House Intelligence Committee staffers in grand jury subpoenas sent to Google. It has been criticized for using the Jan. 6 Capitol riot investigations to target conservative groups and GOP members of Congress, including seizing the phone of one GOP member.
The FBI also has been criticized for targeting pro-life violence while not showing the same vigor toward pro-choice violence.
Hunter’s laptop
While the FBI was eager to continue the Russian investigations with no clear evidence of collusion, it showed the opposite inclination when given Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop. The laptop would seem to be a target-rich environment for criminal investigators, with photos and emails detailing an array of potential crimes involving foreign transactions, guns, drugs, and prostitutes. However, reports indicate that FBI officials moved to quash or slow any investigation.
The computer repairman who acquired the laptop, John Paul Mac Isaac, said he struggled to get the FBI to respond and that agents made thinly veiled threats regarding any disclosures of material related to the Biden family; he said one agent told him that “in their experience, nothing ever happens to people that don’t talk about these things.”
The ‘Twitter Files’
The “Twitter Files” released by Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, show as many as 80 agents targeting social-media posters for censorship on the site. This included alleged briefings that Twitter officials said were the reason they spiked the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election.
The FBI sent 150 messages on back channels to just one Twitter official to flag accounts. One Twitter executive expressed unease over the FBI’s pressure, declaring: “They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff).”
We also have learned that Twitter hired a number of retired FBI agents, including former FBI general counsel James Baker, who was a critical and controversial figure in past bureau scandals over political bias.
Attacking critics
It is not clear what is more chilling — the menacing role played by the FBI in Twitter’s censorship program, or its mendacious response to the disclosure of that role. The FBI has issued a series of “nothing-to-see-here” statements regarding the Twitter Files.
In its latest statement, the FBI insists it did not command Twitter to take any specific action when flagging accounts to be censored. Of course, it didn’t have to threaten the company — because we now have an effective state media by consent rather than coercion. Moreover, an FBI warning tends to concentrate the minds of most people without the need for a specific threat.
Finally, the files show that the FBI paid Twitter millions as part of this censorship system — a windfall favorably reported to Baker before he was fired from Twitter by Musk.
Criticizing the FBI is now ‘disinformation’
Responding to the disclosures and criticism, an FBI spokesperson declared: “The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public. It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”
Arguably, “working every day to protect the American public” need not include censoring the public to protect it from errant or misleading ideas.
However, it is the attack on its critics that is most striking. While the FBI denounced critics of an earlier era as communists and “fellow travellers,” it now uses the same attack narrative to label its critics as “conspiracy theorists.”
After Watergate, there was bipartisan support for reforming the FBI and intelligence agencies. Today, that cacophony of voices has been replaced by crickets, as much of the media imposes another effective blackout on coverage of the Twitter Files. This media silence suggests that the FBI found the “sweet spot” on censorship, supporting the views of the political and media establishment.
As for the rest of us, the FBI now declares us to be part of a disinformation danger that it is committed to stamping out — “conspiracy theorists” misleading the public simply by criticizing the bureau.
Clearly, this is the time for a new Church Committee — and time to reform the FBI.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.
In the Twitter post of concern, dated March 26, 2021, Kulldorff said that children and those who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 do not need to be vaccinated, but that vaccines were important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. The post was flagged by a Twitter moderator as having violated the company’s COVID-19 “misinformation policy.”
An internal email shared by Zweig showed that the moderator claimed Kulldorff had shared “false information regarding the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, which goes against CDC guidelines.” Twitter subsequently labelled the post as “misleading” and turned off all likes and replies.
BY TYLER DURDEN
TUESDAY, DEC 27, 2022
Authored by Mimi Nguyen Ly via The Epoch Times,.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a prominent epidemiologist and biostatistician and former Harvard School of Medicine professor, said he was “not surprised” after seeing concrete evidence that a post he shared on Twitter was flagged and prevented from wider dissemination.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, epidemiologist and statistician. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
He expressed disapproval and said that the social media giant’s overall censorship actions have stifled free debate on COVID-19 topics and undermined trust in science.
In the latest installment of the Elon Musk-endorsed “Twitter Files” published early on Dec. 26, journalist David Zweig shared how posts from Kulldorff and several others about COVID-19, including about vaccines, were flagged and censored in various ways by Twitter.
It marked the first trove of direct evidence from the “Twitter Files” showing how Twitter censored scientists, potentially at the behest of the U.S. government, ever since journalist Bari Weiss revealed in early December that Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya had been put on a blacklist due to his views on COVID-19-related lockdowns and school closures.
While Kulldorff said he was not surprised by evidence showing how he and others were censored, he said Twitter should not be the arbiter of which scientists have valid views, and that such censorship shouldn’t happen.
“There should be an open discussion. You can’t expect people to trust public health and trust the scientific community if you don’t have that open communication and open debate,” Kulldorff told The Epoch Times.
In the Twitter post of concern, dated March 26, 2021, Kulldorff said that children and those who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 do not need to be vaccinated, but that vaccines were important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. The post was flagged by a Twitter moderator as having violated the company’s COVID-19 “misinformation policy.”
An internal email shared by Zweig showed that the moderator claimed Kulldorff had shared “false information regarding the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, which goes against CDC guidelines.” Twitter subsequently labelled the post as “misleading” and turned off all likes and replies.
“But Kulldorff’s statement was an expert’s opinion—one which also happened to be in line with vaccine policies in numerous other countries. Yet it was deemed ‘false information’ by Twitter moderators merely because it differed from CDC guidelines,” Zweig wrote.
“After Twitter took action, Kulldorff’s tweet was slapped with a ‘Misleading’ label and all replies and likes were shut off, throttling the tweet’s ability to be seen and shared by many people, the ostensible core function of the platform.”
A child receives a dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in Los Angeles, Calif., on Nov. 5, 2021. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)
Kulldorff reiterated his views on COVID-19 vaccination in children, telling The Epoch Times late Monday: “We know and we’ve known ever since the very beginning of the pandemic, and the data from Wuhan, that children are at minuscule risk … from dying from COVID-19.”
“So the benefit of the vaccine, therefore, is almost nothing, because it doesn’t prevent [transmission]. [And] the risk of death and hospitalization [with children] is very low. The benefit is very, very small. We know that,” he added.
“So then the question is, what are the potential harms? And we know there are potential harms, with myocarditis, for example. I think the benefit is so tiny it’s not worth taking the risks of adverse reactions, which we know there is myocarditis, but we don’t know the full extent of adverse reactions yet.”
Kulldorff also dismissed the view that had been promulgated incessantly by health officials and media outlets that COVID-19 vaccination is “safe and effective” at large.
“I think for many people, they only heard one voice. And when they heard alternative voices, [those voices] were sort of dismissed as cranks. But that’s not how medicine or science works,” he said.
“There are many vaccines and many drugs that are important for some people, but unnecessary for others. So to say that everybody should get a vaccine, that’s not very scientific way of thinking about things,” he said.
“Just like saying that nobody should ever be vaccinated is equally unscientific,” he added.
“But we get sort of a polarizing view between the anti-vaxxers and vaccine fanatics,” Kulldorff observed, adding that in his opinion, “the vaccine fanatics have done much more damage to vaccine confidence than anybody else with pushing vaccine mandates based on flawed scientific thinking.”
“I think that [the push for vaccine mandates] has had consequences not only for the COVID-19 vaccine but also for childhood vaccines—important childhood vaccines like polio, for example,” he said.
“So vaccine fanatics who have been pushing for mandates—that everybody should get vaccinated—they have done a lot of damage to vaccine confidence in the U.S. and other parts of the world as well.”
Amid emerging evidence that U.S. government officials have exerted influence on social media companies with regard to the sharing of views on COVID-19, Kulldorff expressed that the government “should not at all be involved” in any such influence.
While various examples have now come to light with regard to Twitter’s censorship of scientists, Kulldorff said he hopes to see the full extent of this censorship one day, such as “a summary of how many were censored, how many were blacklisted, for how long, and so on.”
He said it would also be important to know which person or people were behind the decisions to censor and whether there were people who were reporting posts to Twitter to be censored.
“Were other scientists involved in urging Twitter to censor their fellow scientists who had a different opinion?” he pondered. “And if so, to what extent, and who were those scientists?”
“I have never sent in a report to Twitter, asking them to censor a scientist with a different opinion of mine. I don’t think scientists should engage in such activity.”
It’s amazing that for the last couple of decades many Hollywood celebrities have become self-described experts and spokespeople for US wars, Big Pharma, climate change and other globalist agendas.
The so-called “Hollywood activists” such as George Clooney, U2 lead singer Bono, and the rest of them are phony as they can be.
Global Research, December 27, 2022
Region: USA
Theme: Intelligence
***
Alistair Cooke, a British-born writer who became a BBC film critic early in his career who worked mainly in the United States as a journalist, television personality, radio broadcaster had expressed his honest point of view on Hollywood’s film industry when he said that
“I believe that Hollywood is the most effective and disastrous propaganda factory there has ever been in the history of human beings.”
Since World War II, Hollywood has been one of the main instruments of propaganda for globalist agendas. It began with US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt who established the US Office of War Information (OWI) from June 1942 until September 1945 whose job was to regulate newspapers, radio broadcasts, Hollywood films and all other forms of media in order to propagandize the public in an effort to gain support for America’s involvement in the war.
The OWI launched a global propaganda campaign that oversaw revisions in collaboration with Hollywood producers, and at times, even rejected film scripts that portrayed the US as a negative force on the world stage. The OWI’s main job was to reject any film that had anti-war material.
There was also the Bureau of Motion Pictures (BMP) which was a division under the OWI that worked with Hollywood executives to decide which movies could benefit the war effort, for example, it authorized several films that had anti-Japanese propaganda, sort of like today’s anti-Russia propaganda you find in many Hollywood films. However, over the last 20 years or so, Hollywood propaganda has even become even worse with the help of its Hollywood celebrities who have become mouthpieces for globalist agendas, so let’s call them for what they really are, ‘Useful Idiots.’
It’s amazing that for the last couple of decades many Hollywood celebrities have become self-described experts and spokespeople for US wars, Big Pharma, climate change and other globalist agendas.
Hollywood celebrities act and sing for a living, wear expensive name-brand clothing, and in some cases exploit their children to be part of the new woke culture.
The so-called “Hollywood activists” such as George Clooney, U2 lead singer Bono, and the rest of them are phony as they can be.
However, in all fairness, there are a handful of celebrities who do not, in any way fall into that category including Mel Gibson who is an outspoken critic in Hollywood, comedian and actor George Carlin (R.I.P.), Marlon Brando, John Lennon (R.I.P.) and a handful of others.
When it comes to Israeli occupation and genocide against the Palestinians, Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz, singer-songwriter and composer Roger Waters, Natalie Portman, and actress Vanessa Redgrave come to mind. In 1978, Vanessa Redgrave won an Oscar for best-supporting actress in the film ‘Julia’ gave an acceptance speech at the 50th Academy Awards in which she denounced Israel’s war against the Palestinians. Redgrave said that “a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums whose behavior is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world.” The British actress had claimed in the past that the far-right Jewish Defense League targeted her for producing the 1977 documentary ‘The Palestinian’.
Most Hollywood celebrities who toe the line will do and say anything to remain relevant in the film and television industries, so they also follow the mainstream media narratives or listen to their Hollywood bosses, or maybe they are just dumbed-down individuals, just ask outspoken actor and comedian Ricky Gervais who had an iconic opening monologue in the Golden Globe awards ceremony in 2020 that will be remembered for the ages:
So, if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.
So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God and f**k off, OK? It’s already three hours long. Right, let’s do the first award
Cultural Imperialism and Perception Management: How Hollywood Hides US War Crimes
Sean Penn and Ben Stiller: War against Russia
Although talented, two of the most “idiotic” actors in Hollywood when it comes to the war in Ukraine are Sean Penn and Ben Stiller. Last month, Sean Penn recently visited and lent Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky his Oscar while Zelensky awarded Penn the Order of Merit honor because he is “doing everything to help us gather international support” according to Reuters.
The article ‘Sean Penn visits Ukraine’s Zelensky, loans him an Oscar’ stated that “Hollywood actor and director Sean Penn, sanctioned by Russia for criticizing its war in Ukraine, loaned his Oscar statuette to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy during a visit to Kyiv on Tuesday.”
The other actor is Ben Stiller who played a model in Zoolander and many other films called Zelensky his hero. According to NBC News ‘Ben Stiller meets with Zelenskyy in Kyiv, tells Ukrainian leader ‘You’re my hero’ said that
“The comedy star praised the Ukrainian president — himself a former comedian and actor — as a hero during the meeting, telling him: “You’re amazing” and that “It’s a great honor for me,” Stiller, who was appointed a UNHCR goodwill ambassador in July 2018, said in video capturing the meeting. “It’s really wonderful, you’re my hero. You’re amazing.” So Stiller jumps on the Zelensky bandwagon just like most of his Hollywood friends to help the Western narrative that the war in Ukraine is about “freedom and democracy.”
But I want to go back to Sean Penn and his incredible hypocrisy when it comes to US wars and regime change. In 2011, US President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton gave US forces and NATO the greenlight to remove Libyan President, Muammar Gaddafi from power which destroyed Libya in the process. Here is the interview with Sean Penn on CNN on his claim that it was all Gaddafi’s fault:
Obviously, the war on Libya was run by the Democratic Party so for Penn it was justified. Now here is Sean Penn questioning the Bush Administration on WMDs in Iraq on December 15th, 2002. The war on Iraq was basically a Republican Party affair under the Bush neocons (click image below to watch the video):
Sean Penn’s hypocrisy is clearly staggering. He is a total propagandist for the US war machine. Although Sean Penn has supported Venezuela’s revolution and other causes such as the Haiti’s earthquake in 2010 where he founded the J/P Haitian Relief Organization which operated a 55,000 person tent camp for victims of the earthquake, he is still a mouthpiece for the Democratic party and any regime change operation they deem necessary, so it is fair to say that both, Sean Penn and Ben Stiller are useful idiots.
Celebrities who Proudly Received their Covid-19 Vaccines
I am not going to get into the global lockdown and the dangers of the Covid-19 vaccine and the ridiculous enforcement of wearing facemasks or social distancing rules, so here are what several celebrities have posted on Instagram and twitter after they received their shots :
Lady Gaga:
“Double vaxed + boosted…don’t 4get to still wear a mask this sh*ts contagious ,
America Ferrara:
“Boosted for the holidays! Thankful for the miracle of science and medicine allowing me to be with my loved ones safely this year
Amber Heard:
“Did someone say ‘vaccine queen’?! ”
Sean Penn (No Surprise here!):
“I’m a lucky man. Lucky to work alongside the @LAFD & our great frontline @CoreResponse staff, our partners at Carbon Health, USC, & Curative Lab,” he tweeted. “We test & vaccinate thousands per day. We need your support to get more people lucky. Text CORE to 707070 to donate.”
*Note: Sean Penn was interviewed by Yahoo Entertainment and said that “My deep belief personally, is that these [vaccines are] no different than having everybody being able to drive 100 miles an hour in a car” he continued “This is one of those things that should be mandatory. That we all get with the exception — the very few exceptions — for those people who, for whatever medical condition, might offset it, but I do think that vaccines need to be mandatory, and I do think that business — all businesses, the movie business, all businesses — need to take the lead and to be not so timid in dealing with their collective bargaining agreement partners.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger:
“All right, I just got my vaccine, and I would recommend it to anyone and everyone, come with me if you want to live.”
Despite all the evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are dangerous and that wearing a facemask or social distancing does not work which brings me to the conclusion that these Hollywood celebrities are either brainwashed by the mainstream media, or they are just following the lies of Anthony Fauci who was elevated to celebrity status during the Covid-19 “pandemic”.
These people are not role models, they are just following what the medical establishment has prescribed to the public. They are propagandizing the public to take Covid-19 killer shots which demonstrates that no one should listen to these people. Once you inject the MRNA technology into your body, its forever, its permanent and you cannot detox to get rid of it. So in other words, don’t listen to these fools.
The Truth about Hollywood
There is no doubt that Hollywood has produced good films in the past but the Hollywood of today should focus on producing better movies and TV shows because most of their films are made only for propaganda purposes. In fact, many films today have no originality, better yet, there should be an alternative Hollywood that produces films without any form of propaganda that are worth watching.
They can produce films that tell us real stories from around the world, like stories that come out of the Palestinian struggle or what is happening in certain parts of Africa as in the Hollywood movie ‘Blood Diamond’ with Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou that tells the story about the Diamond industry and its effects on the African people. Instead, they produce propaganda films based on the US Military fighting for democracy or numerous films based on the Jewish Holocaust. When was the last time you saw a film based on the genocide of a Native American tribe on the North American continent?
However, Hollywood is pretty good at producing movies that offend different nationalities and cultures. As we all know who really runs Hollywood, one documentary that shows some of the most offensive films based on the Muslim world is called
‘Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People’ by Dr. Jack Shaheen.
Hollywood and their useful idiot celebrities are propagandists who support the war in Ukraine, the Covid-19 vaccines and other globalist agendas including the concept of eating bugs as recommended by the World Economic Forum. The bottom line is that Hollywood and their useful idiot celebrities are a bunch of clowns that should not be taken seriously, so why do people around the world idolize these people in the first place is beyond me.
*
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All images in this article are from SCN
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Timothy Alexander Guzman, Global Research, 2022
Tales from the Conspiratum 
