“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - Plato
Seeking Truth in a World of Propaganda. Links do not necessarily indicate agreement with stories or perspectives.
American liberals are obsessed with finding ways to silence and censor their adversaries. Every week, if not every day, they have new targets they want de-platformed, banned, silenced, and otherwise prevented from speaking or being heard (by "liberals,” I mean the term of self-description used by the dominant wing of the Democratic Party).
Joe Rogan interviews Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Aug. 6, 2019, roughly six months before he endorsed the Vermont independent for president.
For years, their preferred censorship tactic was to expand and distort the concept of "hate speech” to mean "views that make us uncomfortable,” and then demand that such “hateful” views be prohibited on that basis. For that reason, it is now common to hear Democrats assert, falsely, that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not protect “hate speech." Their political culture has long inculcated them to believe that they can comfortably silence whatever views they arbitrarily place into this category without being guilty of censorship.
Constitutional illiteracy to the side, the “hate speech” framework for justifying censorship is now insufficient because liberals are eager to silence a much broader range of voices than those they can credibly accuse of being hateful. That is why the newest, and now most popular, censorship framework is to claim that their targets are guilty of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.” These terms, by design, have no clear or concise meaning. Like the term “terrorism,” it is their elasticity that makes them so useful.
When liberals’ favorite media outlets, from CNN and NBC to The New York Times and The Atlantic, spend four years disseminating one fabricated Russia story after the next — from the Kremlin hacking into Vermont's heating system and Putin's sexual blackmail over Trump to bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the Biden email archive being "Russian disinformation,” and a magical mystery weapon that injures American brains with cricket noises — none of that is "disinformation” that requires banishment. Nor are false claims that COVID's origin has proven to be zoonotic rather than a lab leak, the vastly overstated claim that vaccines prevent transmission of COVID, or that Julian Assange stole classified documents and caused people to die. Corporate outlets beloved by liberals are free to spout serious falsehoods without being deemed guilty of disinformation, and, because of that, do so routinely.
This "disinformation" term is reserved for those who question liberal pieties, not for those devoted to affirming them. That is the real functional definition of “disinformation” and of its little cousin, “misinformation.” It is not possible to disagree with liberals or see the world differently than they see it. The only two choices are unthinking submission to their dogma or acting as an agent of "disinformation.” Dissent does not exist to them; any deviation from their worldview is inherently dangerous — to the point that it cannot be heard.
The data proving a deeply radical authoritarian strain in Trump-era Democratic Party politics is ample and have been extensively reported here. Democrats overwhelmingly trust and love the FBI and CIA. Polls show they overwhelmingly favor censorship of the internet not only by Big Tech oligarchs but also by the state. Leading Democratic Party politicians have repeatedly subpoenaed social media executives and explicitly threatened them with legal and regulatory reprisals if they do not censor more aggressively — a likely violation of the First Amendment given decades of case law ruling that state officials are barred from coercing private actors to censor for them, in ways the Constitution prohibits them from doing directly.
Democratic officials have used the pretexts of COVID, “the insurrection," and Russia to justify their censorship demands. Both Joe Biden and his Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, have "urged” Silicon Valley to censor more when asked about Joe Rogan and others who air what they call “disinformation” about COVID. They cheered the use of pro-prosecutor tactics against Michael Flynn and other Russiagate targets; made a hero out of the Capitol Hill Police officer who shot and killed the unarmed Ashli Babbitt; voted for an additional $2 billion to expand the functions of the Capitol Police; have demanded and obtained lengthy prison sentences and solitary confinement even for non-violent 1/6 defendants; and even seek to import the War on Terror onto domestic soil.
Given the climate prevailing in the American liberal faction, this authoritarianism is anything but surprising. For those who convince themselves that they are not battling mere political opponents with a different ideology but a fascist movement led by a Hitler-like figure bent on imposing totalitarianism — a core, defining belief of modern-day Democratic Party politics — it is virtually inevitable that they will embrace authoritarianism. When a political movement is subsumed by fear — the Orange Hitler will put you in camps and end democracy if he wins again — then it is not only expected but even rational to embrace authoritarian tactics including censorship to stave off this existential threat. Fear always breeds authoritarianism, which is why manipulating and stimulating that human instinct is the favorite tactic of political demagogues.
And when it comes to authoritarian tactics, censorship has become the liberals’ North Star. Every week brings news of a newly banished heretic. Liberals cheered the news last week that Google's YouTube permanently banned the extremely popular video channel of conservative commentator Dan Bongino. His permanent ban was imposed for the crime of announcing that, moving forward, he would post all of his videos exclusively on the free speech video platform Rumble after he received a seven-day suspension from Google's overlords for spreading supposed COVID “disinformation.” What was Bongino's prohibited view that prompted that suspension? He claimed cloth masks do not work to stop the spread of COVID, a view shared by numerous experts and, at least in part, by the CDC. When Bongino disobeyed the seven-day suspension by using an alternative YouTube channel to announce his move to Rumble, liberals cheered Google's permanent ban because the only thing liberals hate more than platforms that allow diverse views are people failing to obey rules imposed by corporate authorities.
It is not hyperbole to observe that there is now a concerted war on any platforms devoted to free discourse and which refuse to capitulate to the demands of Democratic politicians and liberal activists to censor. The spear of the attack are corporate media outlets, who demonize and try to render radioactive any platforms that allow free speech to flourish. When Rumble announced that a group of free speech advocates — including myself, former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, comedian Bridget Phetasy, former Sanders campaign videographer Matt Orfalea and journalist Zaid Jilani — would produce video content for Rumble, The Washington Post immediately published a hit piece, relying exclusively on a Google-and-Facebook-aligned so-called "disinformation expert” to malign Rumble as "one of the main platforms for conspiracy communities and far-right communities in the U.S. and around the world” and a place “where conspiracies thrive," all caused by Rumble's "allowing such videos to remain on the site unmoderated.” (The narrative about Rumble is particular bizarre since its Canadian founder and still-CEO, Chris Pavlovski created Rumble in 2013 with apolitical goals — to allow small content creators abandoned by YouTube to monetize their content — and is very far from an adherent to right-wing ideology).
The same attack was launched, and is still underway, against Substack, also for the crime of refusing to ban writers deemed by liberal corporate outlets and activists to be hateful and/or fonts of disinformation. After the first wave of liberal attacks on Substack failed — that script was that it is a place for anti-trans animus and harassment — The Post returned this week for round two, with a paint-by-numbers hit piece virtually identical to the one it published last year about Rumble. “Newsletter company Substack is making millions off anti-vaccine content, according to estimates,” blared the sub-headline. “Prominent figures known for spreading misinformation, such as [Joseph] Mercola, have flocked to Substack, podcasting platforms and a growing number of right-wing social media networks over the past year after getting kicked off or restricted on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube,” warned the Post. It is, evidently, extremely dangerous to society for voices to still be heard once Google decrees they should not be.
This Post attack on Substack predictably provoked expressions of Serious Concern from good and responsible liberals. That included Chelsea Clinton, who lamented that Substack is profiting off a “grift.” Apparently, this political heiress — who is one of the world's richest individuals by virtue of winning the birth lottery of being born to rich and powerful parents, who in turn enriched themselves by cashing in on their political influence in exchange for $750,000 paychecks from Goldman Sachs for 45-minute speeches, and who herself somehow was showered with a $600,000 annual contract from NBC News despite no qualifications — believes she is in a position to accuse others of "grifting.” She also appears to believe that — despite welcoming convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell to her wedding to a hedge fund oligarch whose father was expelled from Congress after his conviction on thirty-one counts of felony fraud — she is entitled to decree who should and should not be allowed to have a writing platform:
This Post-manufactured narrative about Substack instantly metastasized throughout the liberal sect of media. “Anti-vaxxers making ‘at least $2.5m’ a year from publishing on Substack,” read the headline of The Guardian, the paper that in 2018 published the outright lie that Julian Assange met twice with Paul Manafort inside the Ecuadorian Embassy and refuses to this day to retract it (i.e., “disinformation"). Like The Post, the British paper cited one of the seemingly endless number of shady pro-censorship groups — this one calling itself the “Center for Countering Digital Hate” — to argue for greater censorship by Substack. “They could just say no,” said the group's director, who has apparently convinced himself he should be able to dictate what views should and should not be aired: “This isn’t about freedom; this is about profiting from lies. . . . Substack should immediately stop profiting from medical misinformation that can seriously harm readers.”
The emerging campaign to pressure Spotify to remove Joe Rogan from its platform is perhaps the most illustrative episode yet of both the dynamics at play and the desperation of liberals to ban anyone off-key. It was only a matter of time before this effort really galvanized in earnest. Rogan has simply become too influential, with too large of an audience of young people, for the liberal establishment to tolerate his continuing to act up. Prior efforts to coerce, cajole, or manipulate Rogan to fall into line were abject failures. Shortly after The Wall Street Journal reported in September, 2020 that Spotify employees were organizing to demand that some of Rogan's shows be removed from the platform, Rogan invited Alex Jones onto his show: a rather strong statement that he was unwilling to obey decrees about who he could interview or what he could say.
On Tuesday, musician Neil Young demanded that Spotify either remove Rogan from its platform or cease featuring Young's music, claiming Rogan spreads COVID disinformation. Spotify predictably sided with Rogan, their most popular podcaster in whose show they invested $100 million, by removing Young's music and keeping Rogan. The pressure on Spotify mildly intensified on Friday when singer Joni Mitchell issued a similar demand. All sorts of censorship-mad liberals celebrated this effort to remove Rogan, then vowed to cancel their Spotify subscription in protest of Spotify's refusal to capitulate for now; a hashtag urging the deletion of Spotify's app trended for days. Many bizarrely urged that everyone buy music from Apple instead; apparently, handing over your cash to one of history's largest and richest corporations, repeatedly linked to the use of slave labor, is the liberal version of subversive social justice.
Spotify chose Joe Rogan over Neil Young.
— Jack Cocchiarella (@JDCocchiarella) January 27, 2022
I’ll choose Apple Music over Spotify.
Obviously, Spotify is not going to jettison one of their biggest audience draws over a couple of faded septuagenarians from the 1960s. But if a current major star follows suit, it is not difficult to imagine a snowball effect. The goal of liberals with this tactic is to take any disobedient platform and either force it into line or punish it by drenching it with such negative attacks that nobody who craves acceptance in the parlors of Decent Liberal Society will risk being associated with it. “Prince Harry was under pressure to cut ties with Spotify yesterday after the streaming giant was accused of promoting anti-vax content,” claimed The Daily Mail which, reliable or otherwise, is a certain sign of things to come.
One could easily envision a tipping point being reached where a musician no longer makes an anti-Rogan statement by leaving the platform as Young and Mitchell just did, but instead will be accused of harboring pro-Rogan sentiments if they stay on Spotify. With the stock price of Spotify declining as these recent controversies around Rogan unfolded, a strategy in which Spotify is forced to choose between keeping Rogan or losing substantial musical star power could be more viable than it currently seems. “Spotify lost $4 billion in market value this week after rock icon Neil Young called out the company for allowing comedian Joe Rogan to use its service to spread misinformation about the COVID vaccine on his popular podcast, 'The Joe Rogan Experience,’” is how The San Francisco Chronicle put it (that Spotify's stock price dropped rather precipitously contemporaneously with this controversy is clear; less so is the causal connection, though it seems unlikely to be entire coincidental):
It is worth recalling that NBC News, in January, 2017, announced that it had hired Megyn Kelly away from Fox News with a $69 million contract. The network had big plans for Kelly, whose first show debuted in June of that year. But barely more than a year later, Kelly's comments about blackface — in which she rhetorically wondered whether the notorious practice could be acceptable in the modern age with the right intent: such as a young white child paying homage to a beloved African-American sports or cultural figure on Halloween — so enraged liberals, both inside the now-liberal network and externally, that they demanded her firing. NBC decided it was worth firing Kelly — on whom they had placed so many hopes — and eating her enormous contract in order to assuage widespread liberal indignation. “The cancellation of the ex-Fox News host’s glossy morning show is a reminder that networks need to be more stringent when assessing the politics of their hirings,” proclaimed The Guardian.
Democrats are not only the dominant political faction in Washington, controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, but liberals in particular are clearly the hegemonic culture force in key institutions: media, academia and Hollywood. That is why it is a mistake to assume that we are near the end of their orgy of censorship and de-platforming victories. It is far more likely that we are much closer to the beginning than the end. The power to silence others is intoxicating. Once one gets a taste of its power, they rarely stop on their own.
Indeed, it was once assumed that Silicon Valley giants steeped in the libertarian ethos of a free internet would be immune to demands to engage in political censorship ("content moderation” is the more palatable euphemism which liberal corporate media outlets prefer). But when the still-formidable megaphones of The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News, CNN and the rest of the liberal media axis unite to accuse Big Tech executives of having blood on their hands and being responsible for the destruction of American democracy, that is still an effective enforcement mechanism. Billionaires are, like all humans, social and political animals and instinctively avoid ostracization and societal scorn.
Beyond the personal interest in avoiding vilification, corporate executives can be made to censor against their will and in violation of their political ideology out of self-interest. The corporate media still has the ability to render a company toxic, and the Democratic Party more now than ever has the power to abuse their lawmaking and regulatory powers to impose real punishment for disobedience, as it has repeatedly threatened to do. If Facebook or Spotify are deemed to be so toxic that no Good Liberals can use them without being attacked as complicit in fascism, white supremacy or anti-vax fanaticism, then that will severely limit, if not entirely sabotage, a company's future viability.
The one bright spot in all this — and it is a significant one — is that liberals have become such extremists in their quest to silence all adversaries that they are generating their own backlash, based in disgust for their tyrannical fanaticism. In response to the Post attack, Substack issued a gloriously defiant statement re-affirming its commitment to guaranteeing free discourse. They also repudiated the hubristic belief that they are competent to act as arbiters of Truth and Falsity, Good and Bad. “Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse,” read the headline on the post from Substack's founders. The body of their post reads like a free speech manifesto:
That’s why, as we face growing pressure to censor content published on Substack that to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on principles not PR, we will defend free expression, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to content moderation. While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes, we will always view censorship as a last resort, because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society.
A lengthy Twitter thread from Substack's Vice President of Communications, Lulu Cheng Meservey was similarly encouraging and assertive. "I'm proud of our decision to defend free expression, even when it’s hard," she wrote, adding: "because: 1) We want a thriving ecosystem full of fresh and diverse ideas. That can’t happen without the freedom to experiment, or even to be wrong.” Regarding demands to de-platform those allegedly spreading COVID disinformation, she pointedly — and accurately — noted: “If everyone who has ever been wrong about this pandemic were silenced, there would be no one left talking about it at all.” And she, too, affirmed principles that every actual, genuine liberal — not the Nancy Pelosi kind — reflexively supports:
People already mistrust institutions, media, and each other. Knowing that dissenting views are being suppressed makes that mistrust worse. Withstanding scrutiny makes truths stronger, not weaker. We made a promise to writers that this is a place they can pursue what they find meaningful, without coddling or controlling. We promised we wouldn’t come between them and their audiences. And we intend to keep our side of the agreement for every writer that keeps theirs. to think for themselves. They tend not to be conformists, and they have the confidence and strength of conviction not to be threatened by views that disagree with them or even disgust them.
This is becoming increasingly rare.
The U.K.'s Royal Society, its national academy of scientists, this month echoed Substack's view that censorship, beyond its moral dimensions and political dangers, is ineffective and breeds even more distrust in pronouncements by authorities. “Governments and social media platforms should not rely on content removal for combatting harmful scientific misinformation online." "There is,” they concluded, "little evidence that calls for major platforms to remove offending content will limit scientific misinformation’s harms” and "such measures could even drive it to harder-to-address corners of the internet and exacerbate feelings of distrust in authorities.”
As both Rogan's success and collapsing faith and interest in traditional corporate media outlets proves, there is a growing hunger for discourse that is liberated from the tight controls of liberal media corporations and their petulant, herd-like employees. That is why other platforms devoted to similar principles of free discourse, such as Rumble for videos and Callin for podcasts, continue to thrive. It is certain that those platforms will continue to be targeted by institutional liberalism as they grow and allow more dissidents and heretics to be heard. Time will tell if they, too, will resist these censorship pressures, but the combination of genuine conviction on the part of their founders and managers, combined with the clear market opportunities for free speech platforms and heterodox thinkers, provides ample ground for optimism.
None of this is to suggest that American liberals are the only political faction that succumbs to the strong temptations of censorships. Liberals often point to the growing fights over public school curricula and particularly the conservative campaign to exclude so-called Critical Race Theory from the public schools as proof that the American Right is also a pro-censorship faction. That is a poor example. Censorship is about what adults can hear, not what children are taught in public schools. Liberals crusaded for decades to have creationism banned from the public schools and largely succeeded, yet few would suggest this was an act of censorship. For the reason I just gave, I certainly would define it that way. Fights over what children should and should not be taught can have a censorship dimension but usually do not, precisely because limits and prohibitions in school curricula are inevitable.
There are indeed examples of right-wing censorship campaigns: among the worst are laws implemented by GOP legislatures and championed by GOP governors to punish those who support a boycott of Israel by denying them contracts or other employment benefits. And among the most frequent targets of censorship campaigns on college campuses are critics of Israel and activists for Palestinian rights. But federal courts have been unanimously striking down those indefensible red-state laws punishing BDS activists as an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights, and polling data, as noted above, shows that it is the Democrats who overwhelmingly favor internet censorship while Republicans oppose it.
In sum, censorship — once the province of the American Right during the heydey of the Moral Majority of the 1980s — now occurs in isolated instances in that faction. In modern-day American liberalism, however, censorship is a virtual religion. They simply cannot abide the idea that anyone who thinks differently or sees the world differently than they should be heard. That is why there is much more at stake in this campaign to have Rogan removed from Spotify than whether this extremely popular podcast host will continue to be heard there or on another platform. If liberals succeed in pressuring Spotify to abandon their most valuable commodity, it will mean nobody is safe from their petty-tyrant tactics. But if they fail, it can embolden other platforms to similarly defy these bullying tactics, keeping our discourse a bit more free for just awhile longer.
NOTE: Tonight at 7 pm EST, I will discuss the Rogan censorship campaign and the broader implications of the liberal fixation with censorship on my live Callin podcast. For now, live shows can be heard only with an iPhone and the Callin app — the app will be very shortly available on Androids for universal use — but all shows can be heard by everyone immediately after they are broadcast on the Callin website, here.
To support the independent journalism we are doing here, please subscribe, obtain a gift subscription for others and/or share the article
https://greatgameindia.com/fact-checkers-confuse-people/
Five-time Emmy award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson said she has observed an increased effort to manipulate the public to appreciate censorship and disapprove of journalism. The use of third-party fact-checkers to confuse people is one of the strategies that has been employed, she said.
“Nearly every mode of information has been co-opted, if it can be co-opted by some group, [and] fact-checkers are no different,” Attkisson told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders.”
“Either they’ve been co-opted, in many instances, or created for the purpose of distributing narratives and propaganda,” said Attkisson. “This is all part of a very well-funded, well-organized landscape that dictates and slants the information they want us to have.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) has released a proposal backed by two major globalist organizations that serves as a blueprint for governments to implement a worldwide vaccine passport verification system.
The document, called “Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Certificates: Vaccination Status,” funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundation, describes the technical guidance for governments to roll out the program to usher in a global digital ID due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sky News was revealed to be meddling with the truth about Olympic gold medalist Szilveszter Csollany, who recently died post-Covid-19 vaccination.
The 51-year-old Hungarian, who was the rings champion in the 2020 Sydney Olympics, was admitted to the hospital in December 2021 after supposedly expressing “anti-vaccination views on social media.”
After Csollany later died after many weeks on a ventilator in the ICU, Sky News and other big mainstream media outlets took the opportunity to blame the Olympic champion’s death on his refusal to get vaccinated. However, the only problem is that Csollany did get the jab because he had no other choice if he wanted to continue his career.
Despite having reservations about getting vaccinated, the champion was forced to get vaccinated or lose his career. Tragically, Csollany passed away shortly after getting the jab.
Infowars reported: “Sky News decided not to include this pretty crucial fact in either the headline or on their front page, which merely stated ‘anti-vax Olympic gold medalist dies of coronavirus,’ again suggesting his failure to get vaccinated was a factor in his death.”
It’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time that the mainstream media has lied about the pandemic and pointed blame towards anyone who refuses to get vaccinated.
After terrorising the unvaccinated for months, German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach is backing off and blaming his earlier statements of a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” on a “software error.”
In November 2021, news outlets were reporting an increase in “incident” numbers in Hamburg. The claim was that in just a few days, the case rate for Covid-19 grew from 111.6 people per 100,000 to 160 people per 100,000. As November progressed, that number grew to 209.2 cases per 100,000 people, only to jump at the end of the month to an all-time high of 223.3 cases per 100,000 people.
These incredibly high figures, which have now been revealed to be entirely manufactured, were used as an excuse to legitimise the covid restrictions called “2G.”
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/28/dangerous-chemicals-and-nanotubes-in-test-swabs
Parents, please read so you are armed with additional information to enable you protect your children.
Ethylene oxide is highly toxic – it causes cancer, it damages DNA – and it is found on the Covid test swabs. Although Governments, public health officials and educators are responsible for investigating, raising public awareness and stopping the use of these tests on children, until that happens, society has a responsibility to protect the vulnerable.
In the text below we highlight the work of Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz who has researched the test sticks or swabs used by the population for Covid tests.
Prof. Bergholz is a former professor of electrical engineering with a focus on quality and risk management at the Jakobs University in Bremen. Before his appointment, Prof. Bergholz worked for 17 years in chip production management at Siemens.
In the short video below, he explained results from examining test swabs in the laboratory and the ethylene oxide (EO”) that was found.
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/fda-asks-the-court-to-delay-first
As explained in prior posts, in a lawsuit seeking all of the documents the FDA relied upon to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, a federal judge shot down the FDA’s requested rate of 500 pages per month and instead ordered the FDA to produce at the rate of 55,000 pages per month starting on March 1.
Since the government has trillions of dollars of our money, it is putting it to good use by fighting to assure that the public has the least amount of transparency possible. To that end, it has now asked the Court to make the public wait until May for it to start producing 55,000 pages per month and, even then, claims it may not be able to meet this rate.
The FDA’s excuse? As explained in the brief opposing the FDA’s request, the FDA’s defense effectively amounts to claiming that the 11 document reviewers it has already assigned and the 17 additional reviewers being onboarded are only capable of reading at the speed of preschoolers.
https://altnews.org/2022/01/28/are-we-at-the-end-of-the-pandemic/
For nearly a year, experts have noted that the COVID shots cannot establish herd immunity to end the pandemic, as the gene transfer injections do not prevent infection or transmission.
It’s not rocket science, yet health officials and government leaders around the world have irrationally claimed otherwise, and censored any and all — regardless of credentials — who dared to suggest alternative approaches.
Now, all of a sudden, the narrative is rapidly changing, with loads of these same individuals — truthfully, if you can believe that — acknowledging that the COVID “vaccines” cannot end the pandemic and that we need to learn to live with the virus. Some have even started speaking out against repeated boosters, at least at intervals of three to four months.
It seems a major driver for this U-turn in the pandemic narrative is the emergence of the Omicron variant. While incredibly infectious, it causes only mild cold symptoms in the vast majority of people, so it’s essentially ripping through populations, leaving natural herd immunity in its wake. As a result, many are now claiming the end of the pandemic is in sight.1
https://altnews.org/2022/01/28/probiotics-improve-long-covid/
As reported in this short news clip, research evidence1 shows that probiotics may help reduce long-haul symptoms after COVID-19. Some people experience symptoms for weeks or months after a COVID-19 infection has resolved. When these symptoms persist for four weeks or more, they are known as long COVID, long-haul COVID, chronic COVID or long-haul syndrome.
Many of the symptoms of long COVID can also mirror those that are caused by the COVID-19 genetic therapy injections. Although anyone can experience symptoms of long COVID, it is more frequently seen in people who have been sick enough to be hospitalized or in the ICU.
A Letter to Our Descendants, From 2022 Hello, descendants. I am writing this from year 2022. I am in America. Things are weird. Our governments have betrayed us, our science has been kidnapped and put on a ventilator, and our official media is already dead. As we are approaching two years of this insanity, I want you to hear the story of how this tower of lies was built. This story is just the tip of the iceberg but it's important to name the recent lies — and there have been so many of them! In March 2020, the world went mad, and basic things like hugging a friend or going to visit your parents were declared extreme. Borders were closed. Children were kept away from school. Privacy was made a crime. Elder abuse was glorified. Going to a grocery store or just for a walk outside suddenly required donning a ritual mask. It was as if the wheel was hijacked by cruel lunatics, and they just started barking orders at everyone that made no sense and caused tremendous pain — but the citizens were too shocked, and they obeyed. Overtime, for more shock and awe, more madness was introduced.
The post Are We Living in a Dystopian Reality? appeared first on altnews.org.
At the end of 2021, the term “mass formation psychosis” had a value of 0 on Google Trends, meaning there’s not enough data for the term to even make it on the charts. Then, on December 31, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,1 mentioned it on an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience viewed by more than 50 million people.2 The term, which provides a coherent explanation of why so many people have fallen victim to the unbelievable lies and propaganda of the mainstream COVID-19 narrative, went viral. On January 2, 2022, mass formation psychosis reached a value of 100 on Google Trends,3 which means it had reached peak popularity. Google Manipulates Reality Around ‘Mass Formation Psychosis’ The technocrats quickly took action, adding a rarely seen warning that popped up for those searching the suddenly popular phrase in the early days of 2022. It read, “It looks like these results are changing quickly. If this topic is new, it can sometimes take time for results to be added by reliable sources."4 In reality, the topic is not new. Mattias Desmet, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Ghent in Belgium, who
The post Google Doesn’t Want You to Research Mass Formation Psychosis appeared first on altnews.org.
As per a newly proposed South Carolina law it would be illegal for certain institutions to ask a person for their COVID-19 vaccination status.
The post New Law Would Make It Illegal To Demand A Person’s Vaccine Status appeared first on GreatGameIndia.
On Friday, Pope Francis claimed that an “infodemic” of misinformation about COVID-19 and the vaccines was spreading around the world just as quickly as the disease itself, which Francis described as “a distortion of reality based on fear.”
Francis, who earlier this year described criticism of the vaccines as “baseless,” said that it was a “human right” for people to be properly informed about the world around them. However, instead of encouraging people to research the truth for themselves, the Pope argued that free choice and open information leads to “confusion” for people.
Therefore, he continued, “correct information must be ensured above all to those who are less equipped, to the weakest and to those who are most vulnerable.” Without an “ethical corrective” to decide what is true or not, “algorithms” will lead people to “dangerous forms of radicalization.”
The address from the Pope was promoted by the International Catholic Media Consortium on COVID-19 Vaccines. The group is headed by the Catholic media outlet Aleteia, along with other European media outlets, and has created the “Catholic Fact Checking” project, designed to give Catholic media outlets “unbiased” and “fact-checked” information on the vaccines.
“You yourselves have set as a goal the unmasking of fake news and partial or misleading information about Covid-19 vaccines, and have begun to do so by networking different Catholic media and involving various experts,” Pope Francis said, praising the group. “Your initiative was born as a Consortium that seeks to be together for the truth. Thank you, thank you for this.”
In March last year, the Catholic Fact-Checking project was chosen as one of 11 projects to receive up to $3 million from the Google News Initiative’s Open Fund, designed to help more media outlets correct “fake news” online.
Ironically, other Catholic media outlets have fallen foul of of Big Tech regulations when talking about the vaccines in a way that it is not officially sanctioned, with Life Site News having all of its social media platforms shut down last year for breaching COVID-19 misinformation policies.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, one of Francis’s biggest critics, slammed him last year as a “zealous cooperator” of the Great Reset agenda pushed by globalist organizations such as the WEF, and that he was presiding over the “demolition” of the Catholic Church in order to replace it with an order based on “Masonic inspiration.”
They just have to suffocate anything that smells like freedom, don’t they? After alienating and persecuting so many other groups of Americans, now the Biden administration is coming after cryptocurrency owners. Biden administration officials are promising to bring “coherency” to the industry, but just like everything else that they touch it is far more likely that they are going to ruin the industry. One of the positive things about the cryptocurrency industry has been how relatively free from regulation it has been all these years, but now Biden and his minions are absolutely determined to change that. In fact, Bloomberg has reported that Biden is going to issue a cryptocurrency executive order as soon as next month…
The Biden administration is readying an executive order for release as early as next month that will outline a comprehensive government strategy on cryptocurrencies and ask federal agencies to determine their risks and opportunities, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources.
Barron’s has also had a White House source tell them that this executive order is on the way…
The Biden administration is preparing to release an executive action that will task federal agencies with regulating digital assets such as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a matter of national security, a person familiar with the White House’s plan tells Barron’s.
If you actively trade cryptocurrencies, it is officially time to starting freaking out, because this could change everything.
We are being told that the Biden administration intends to impose a “cohesive regulatory framework” for the sake of “national security”…
The order is set to come under the umbrella of national security efforts as the administration seeks to analyze cryptocurrencies and employ a cohesive regulatory framework that would cover Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and NFTs, Barron’s reported Thursday.
Are you kidding me?
The cryptocurrency industry doesn’t pose any sort of a threat to “national security”.
But it does pose a threat to the U.S. dollar.
And it is very interesting to note that we learned about this executive order one day after the Federal Reserve released a paper discussing the possibility of creating a “central bank digital currency” for the United States…
The news about the executive order emerged a day after the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) released a discussion paper that explores the pros and cons of creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC) for the U.S., which seeks public comment through May 20, 2022. The White House apparently is looking to seize the initiative, taking a central role in setting U.S. government policy on cryptocurrencies.
Could this be the real motive for the coming crackdown?
Do they want to completely neuter the competition so that everyone will use the coming “central bank digital currency” instead?
We are being told that “senior officials” in the administration have already held “multiple meetings” about the new regulatory framework that will soon be imposed.
And we are being told that “the State Department, Treasury Department, National Economic Council, and Council of Economic Advisers, as well as the White House National Security Council” will all be involved in regulating cryptos.
This is really going to happen, and so I urge you to act accordingly.
And apparently this is just the start. Because digital assets are owned all over the globe, the Biden administration intends “to work with other countries on synchronization” so that no crypto owner can escape their rules…
“This is designed to look holistically at digital assets and develop a set of policies that give coherency to what the government is trying to do in this space,” a person familiar with the White House’s plan told Barron’s. “Because digital assets don’t stay in one country, it’s necessary to work with other countries on synchronization.”
Once Biden got into the White House, it was probably inevitable that this sort of thing was going to happen.
They hate the fact that the crypto industry has thrived outside of their tightly controlled system, and so now they intend to bring it fully under their dominion.
In fact, a major step has already been taken. Back in November, most crypto owners didn’t even realize that the signing of the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” was going to change things for them so dramatically…
Before U.S. President Joe Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law in November, many groups spoke out against a provision that broadens the tax code’s definition of “broker.” But there is another hidden cryptocurrency provision in this new law that amends part of the tax code in a way that will greatly expand financial surveillance, criminalize certain cryptocurrency transactions and, in my view, violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This provision alters Section 6050i of the tax code, which requires businesses that receive more than $10,000 in cash to collect identity details of the person paying in cash and report the transaction to the government. Failure to comply can be a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act expanded 6050i to include anyone who, in the course of conducting business, receives over $10,000 in digital assets.
If you actively trade cryptos, you should read those two paragraphs again.
Because you really don’t want to end up committing a felony “punishable by up to five years in prison”.
Ultimately, millions of crypto owners are not going to understand these new rules, and they are going to be an enormous hassle to try to comply with…
Currently, the U.S. government collects information from cryptocurrency exchanges and other institutions that serve as the on-ramps and off-ramps where people buy, sell, exchange and store cryptocurrency. The updated law will impose reporting requirements on many other participants in the cryptocurrency ecosystem – from developers to traders to miners to end users. These participants will be required to collect sensitive identity details of counterparties, securely handle that sensitive information and turn it over to the government – or potentially face criminal penalties.
Nobody can deny that the crypto industry is headed for big trouble.
Each new regulation they impose will suffocate the industry a little bit more, and it won’t be too long before the stage will be perfectly set for the introduction of “Fedcoin”.
This should deeply anger all of us, but most Americans are so dazed and confused that they don’t even care that our freedoms are eroding a little bit more with each passing day.
***It is finally here! Michael’s new book entitled “7 Year Apocalypse” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***
About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “7 Year Apocalypse” is now available on Amazon.com. During this season, I would like to encourage you to send digital copies of my new book to your family and friends as gifts. That will help to support the work that I am doing, and it will help to multiply the impact of the book. In addition to my new book I have written five other books that are available on Amazon.com including “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America”, “The Beginning Of The End”, “Get Prepared Now”, and “Living A Life That Really Matters”. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe. I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions. I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help. During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.
The post Red Alert For Crypto Owners! Biden Is Going To Use A New Executive Order To Come After You In A Major Way appeared first on The Most Important News.
Dr. Michael Palmer, an associate professor of biochemistry, pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, warned people against taking the mRNA Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines because they are designed to poison the recipients.
“The mRNA vaccine technology is really a technology designed to poison people,” said Palmer. (Related: The most detailed evidence yet of the devastating damage COVID jabs can do.)
Palmer explained that one of its main components, the messenger RNA, is supposed to enter people’s bodies to recognize the coronavirus and form a response to it. The other major component of the mRNA vaccine, lipid nanoparticles, would encase the messenger RNA to protect it while it is in transport and help it enter the body’s cells.
What the proponents of the mRNA vaccines don’t talk about are the toxic elements within the vaccine, especially the cationic lipids, or the positively charged lipids. These are crucial for the release of the mRNA.
“They tend to, once they are inside the cell, disrupt the mitochondrial respiration,” said Palmer. In a different interview, he explained that the disruption to mitochondrial respiration can cause mutation and genetic damage.
Palmer further explained that the mRNA vaccines tend to cause “a period of immunosuppression” in people who get vaccinated.
“We are not really sure what share of this immunosuppression to attribute to the spike protein and what share to attribute to the cationic lipids, but I think it is plausible that there is a contribution by these cationic lipids,” he said.
Because of the damage the mRNA vaccines do to the body, one of the first victims are the lymphocytes, which form “the backbone of your specific immune system,” according to Palmer.
“Each time the immune system recognizes a new virus, the lymphocytes are doing the recognition and also are doing at least some of the fighting against those microbes. And these cells happen to be the most susceptible to genetic damage,” he said. “It is well known that if you impose genetic damage, these are the first cells to go.”
Palmer pointed out that cationic lipids are also known to cause “some sort of radiation-like toxicity.”
“The question is how much of this is happening. We don’t really know for sure, because there are really no proper toxicity studies, but there are enough indications to conclude that it is significant.”
Palmer pointed out that none of the research teams working on the mRNA vaccines ever conducted proper toxicity studies before they were released for use by the general public. He called this “one of the great scandals” associated with mRNA vaccine development.
Just like with radiation, the body has a “total dose limit” for mRNA vaccines, Palmer explained.
“What that means is the total lifetime dose of these messenger RNA vaccines that you can tolerate before you die is limited,” he said. “We don’t know the exact amount, because there is simply not enough experimental data.”
According to the doctor, the world is currently at the early stages of this mass toxicity campaign. Many people are already getting hit very badly with acute toxicity.
“But most others actually get away with it,” he said. “But even those who are now getting away with it, they are building up their genetic toxicity, their DNA damage, up towards this ultimate level beyond it simply cannot go.”
More related stories:
Listen to Dr. Michael Palmer explain in detail how the mRNA vaccines are toxic, and giving more of them to people will lead to certain death.
This video is from The Prisoner channel on Brighteon.com. Learn more about the dangers of mRNA vaccines at VaccineDamage.news.
Sources include:
The post Dr. Michael Palmer: mRNA “Vaccines” Cause “Radiation-Like Toxicity” and Are Designed to POISON People appeared first on based underground.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/01/27/human-augmentation-the-dawn-of-a-new-paradigm/
Guest post by Dr. Robert Malone
:extract_focal()/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.substack.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2Fw_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F19fe994f-ebe8-437b-a77d-c39ed6396169_1478x890.png)
The report: “Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm. A strategic implications project” was published jointly by the UK Ministry of Defense, and German Federal Ministry of Defense in 2021. Reading this document is frankly chilling as the the idea of using human augmentation for warfare is considered a fait accompli by the authors. That planning for human augmentation must start now.
We can assume that although this report is coming from the UK Ministry of Defense, and German Federal Ministry of Defense, parallel efforts are being made by most large governments around the world.
