State Covid Propaganda Destroyed Public’s Ability to Consent to Vaccines – Chairman of UK Council for Psychotherapy
BY DR CHRISTIAN BUCKLAND | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | APRIL 28, 2023
There follows an open letter from Dr. Christian Buckland, Chairman of the Board of the U.K. Council for Psychotherapy, to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemning the “use of unethical psychological techniques and behavioural science on the unknowing and non-consenting U.K. public”. Among numerous harms are that the use of techniques to increase fear, shame and guilt “materially undermined, if not removed, the U.K. population’s ability to give valid informed consent to taking a COVID-19 vaccine”.
April 28th 2023
Dear Prime Minister,
I am the Chairman of the Board of the U.K. Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), one of the UK’s foremost psychological governing bodies. However, I write this open letter in my own capacity. I believe I have a professional obligation to write to you in an attempt to protect the public from any further harm caused by the unethical application of psychological research and practice.
I unreservedly condemn the U.K. Government’s use of unethical psychological techniques intended to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt, under the guise of behavioural science and insights which were designed to change the public’s behaviour without their knowledge and conscious participation. It is now clear that in 2020 the U.K. Government deliberately chose to artificially inflate the level of fear within the U.K. population by exaggerating the risk factors of COVID-19, and concomitantly downplaying the protective factors. We also witnessed the Government’s promotion of social disapproval and guilt messaging. These techniques were embedded into a multi-channel, co-ordinated public health campaign designed to change the public’s behaviour without their knowledge. Moreover, in tandem with the mainstream media, the Government also proactively suppressed, censored and ostracised any healthcare professional or scientist who suggested alternative responses to COIVD-19, or who simply questioned the messaging and measures being implemented by the Government.
Evidence of the recommendation of using unethical psychological techniques to gain behavioural change
The Government document titled ‘Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures’ was written for the Government by the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) which is a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).
The premise of the document was to provide options for changing the behaviour of the U.K. public without their knowledge. A passage within this document states: “A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”. It makes certain recommendations including:
- “The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard hitting emotional messaging”
- “Coercion”
- “Social disapproval”
The recommendations made by SPI-B included ones intended to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt. Psychological practitioners know that deliberately trying to frighten someone into change with erroneous or exaggerated information can easily cause long-term psychological damage. We also know that using social disapproval can create splits and divisions within society, and that inducing feelings of guilt can elevate the risk of suicide.
SPI-B also included a simple risk assessment matrix which acknowledges that the “spill over effects” of using media to increase the sense of personal threat and of using social disapproval “could be negative”. There is also a statement demonstrating there was a conversation regarding the spill over effects, although this does not appear to be fully documented. The risk factors and ethics of using fear, shame, guilt and coercion would almost certainly have been known to the members of SPI-B because several members were British Psychological Society (BPS) registered chartered psychologists. In an interview with one of the members of SPI-B, BPS registered educational psychologist Dr. Gavin Morgan, he refers to the use of fear by his SPI-B colleagues and says (as relayed by Laura Dodsworth, in A State of Fear pp. 262,263):
“Clearly using fear as a means of control is not ethical. What you do as a psychologist is co-construction. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government.” … Was it unethical to use fear, I asked? “Well I didn’t suggest we use fear.” But your colleagues did. What do you think of that? He paused. “Oh God.” Another reluctant pause. “It’s not ethical,” he said.
Like Dr. Morgan, any BPS registered psychologists within SPI-B would or should have recognised that recommending the Government uses fear as a means of controlling the public breached their professional code of ethics and conduct. An urgent investigation is required both by the U.K. Government and the BPS. Two specific points of the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct (2021) that may have been broken are (with my emphasis):
3.3 Responsibility. Because of their acknowledged expertise, members of the Society often enjoy professional autonomy; responsibility is an essential element of autonomy. Members must accept appropriate responsibility for what is within their power, control or management. Awareness of responsibility ensures that the trust of others is not abused, the power of influence is properly managed and that duty towards others is always paramount. Statement of values: Members value their responsibilities to persons and peoples, to the general public, and to the profession and science of psychology, including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their contribution to society. In applying these values, psychologists should consider:
- Professional accountability;
- Responsible use of their knowledge and skills;
- Respect for the welfare of humans, non-humans and the living world;
- Potentially competing duties.
3.4 Integrity. Acting with integrity includes being honest, truthful, accurate and consistent in one’s actions, words, decisions, methods and outcomes. It requires setting self-interest to one side and being objective and open to challenge in one’s behaviour in a professional context. Statement of values: Members value honesty, probity, accuracy, clarity and fairness in their interactions with all persons and peoples, and seek to promote integrity in all facets of their scientific and professional endeavours”.
Evidence that psychological techniques to induce fear, shame, guilt and coercion were used on the U.K. public
The SPI-B document in question demonstrates that the options of eliciting feelings of fear, shame, guilt and the use of coercion was recommended to the U.K. Government. There is evidence that those options were indeed subsequently deployed on the U.K. population.
In August 2022, you stated:
In every brief, we tried to say: let’s stop the ‘fear narrative’. It was always wrong from the beginning. I constantly said it was wrong… It was wrong to scare people like that.
Additionally, leaked WhatsApp messages from the former Health Minister at the time, Matt Hancock, published in the Daily Telegraph in March 2023, confirm that fear and guilt were used:
Hancock: We frighten the pants of everyone with the new strain. But the complications with that Brexit is taking the top line
Poole: Yep that’s what will get proper bahviour (sic) change
Hancock: When do we deploy the new variant …
Case: Ramping up messaging – the fear/guilt factor vital
The above are just two examples where senior Government Ministers recognised that fear and guilt was used as drivers for behavioural change of the UK population without their knowledge.
The existing literature
It is important to acknowledge that the above-mentioned psychological techniques were used on the U.K. population without their knowledge or consent, and that this in direct contradiction of long-established and carefully considered behavioural science advice which made clear that, in theory and practice, the consent of the public is paramount. According to a 2010 Institute for Government report:
The use of MINDSPACE (or other ‘nudge’ type policy tools) may require careful handling – in essence, the public need to give permission and help shape how such tools are used. (p10)
Continuing, the report states:
Policy-makers wishing to use these tools summarised in MINDSPACE need the approval of the public to do so. (p74)
Further literature supports that permission from the public is essential. David Halpern wrote in 2015:
If there is one great risk to the application of behavioural insights in policy, it is that the thread of public permission wears too thin. If governments, or indeed communities or companies, wish to use behavioural insights, they must seek and maintain the permission of the public to do so. (p365)
As there was no approval obtained, the options recommended and deployed were not in alignment with the principles of behavioural science.
It is important to highlight that the same kinds of techniques were used on children in relation to mask wearing, social distancing and vaccine uptake, with many techniques continuing into 2022. These techniques violated UNICEF’s recommendations from its ethical toolkit for behavioural science projects directed at children. The tool-kit states:
A core idea underlying the applied behavioural science approach is that interventions should not restrict choice and should transparently communicate project goals. When designing an intervention, practitioners should determine how transparent it will be to those affected by it. They should ensure that children and parents can easily opt out, and should design feedback mechanisms so that children and their parents can voice concerns, see the outcomes of their objections, and hold decision-makers to account.
The behavioural science literature also indicates a potential link between the misuse of behavioural psychology and an increased risk of suicide, stemming from an All Party Parliamentary Group Report on the Morse Review into the Loan Charge in 2020. One of the recommendations within the report demands:
An independent assessment and a suspension of HMRC’s use of behavioural psychology / behavioural insights, in light of the ongoing suicide risk to those impacted by the Loan Charge.
The literature highlights that approval from the public must be sought and maintained. Additionally, all behavioural science projects directed at children must have effective feedback mechanisms and methods of opting out, with decision makers able to be held accountable. There are also existing potential concerns that behavioural science may increase suicide levels. These important ethical aspects and safety signals appear to have been ignored. The lessons of history warn us that in times of existential crisis, whether real or only perceived, our ethics are at risk of being abandoned, and psychological knowledge can become misused by governments:
Under some historical conditions or circumstances and contexts, psychologists and psychological knowledge were in danger of being abused by political powers, largely for clandestine purposes, such as conducting torture or the persecution of political opponents. (Maercker A, Guski-Leinwand S, 2018)
It is of grave concern that the actions of the U.K. Government during the Covid era potentially fit into the category of abusing psychological knowledge and being absent of ethics, thus require serious investigation.
The impact of psychological pressure on informed consent
For the sake of brevity, I will not reiterate the multiple concerns already documented by others surrounding the consequences of the Government’s actions around lockdown, hospital discharges, school closures and mask mandates. I do, however, wish to highlight one extremely serious consequence that I believe has occurred as a direct result of the use of unethical psychological techniques and behavioural insights on the unknowing public: by adopting the techniques used, the Government significantly and materially undermined, if not removed, the U.K. population’s ability to give valid informed consent to taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
According to Public Health England:
Consent must be obtained before starting any treatment or physical investigation or before providing personal care for a patient. This includes the administration of all vaccines.
Also,
It is a legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting personal care, treatment or investigations.
Also,
For consent to immunisation to the (sic) valid, it must be given freely, voluntarily and without coercion by an appropriately informed person who has the mental capacity to consent to the administration of the vaccines in question.
From the above, it is clear that for medical consent to be valid it must be given without coercion. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines coercion as:
The threat or use of punitive measures against states, groups or individuals in order for them to undertake or desist from specified actions. In addition to the threat of or limited use of force (or both), coercion may entail economic sanctions, psychological pressures, and social ostracism.
The psychological techniques used by the U.K. Government fall under that definition of coercion. If follows that according to Public Health England’s statements and for the general public at least, consent to immunisation was invalidated by the behaviour of the U.K. Government. It is also important to highlight that there have been serious injuries and death directly linked to the COVID-19 vaccine. Many of those injured or who have died would not have taken a vaccine if they had not been psychologically pressured, feared being ostracised socially and were given accurate information.
The removal of the general population’s ability to give informed medical consent is of the gravest concern, and a severe and dangerous consequence of using behavioural insights and psychological techniques on an unknowing public.
Conclusion
The need to hold tightly to professional ethics, in particular to the ethical principle of informed consent, is not just an ‘academic’ issue. It is a matter of practical and fundamental importance to responsible government.
According to David Halpern, “Behavioural insights, like any other form of knowledge, can be used for good or bad” (p348). It is my opinion that the use of behavioural insights and psychological techniques designed to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt utilised by the U.K. Government since March 2020 has been unethical. The consequences are still unravelling but they appear to include serious damage to trust in government and its agencies, the NHS and the medical and scientific professions.
I propose that there be an immediate cessation of the use of all behavioural science techniques designed to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt used by the Government pending an urgent, open and independent inquiry. This inquiry should also have as an objective the re-establishment of ethical frameworks necessary to protect the public and to provide accountability. I would welcome a discussion on this most important of matters.
Most respectfully
Dr. Christian Buckland
Doctor of Psychology in Psychotherapy and Counselling
FEAR. This 4-letter word probably explains everything big that’s happening.
BY BILL RICE, JR. | APRIL 28, 2023
Don’t ask me why, but I woke up this morning thinking about fear …. And how it’s really the fear of fear that explains every scary thing happening in our world today.
Fear of Covid is the most-recent example of how authorities and our most influential and important organizations profit from selling (and exaggerating) “threats” we should all fear.
Thirty years ago, few people recognized that the CDC or Fauci’s NIAID or the World Health Organization would obtain so much power over our lives.
There’s no need to recount the draconian “mitigation measures” these authorities created to compel mass compliance with their dictates.
But more citizens should probably think about how these people exploited the population’s irrational fear of a respiratory virus to achieve even more immense power and control.
The greatest fear of all is death. It follows logically that any group that tells you they can and will prevent your death is probably going to receive our blind support … which of course happened in Covid times.
These agencies actually cemented their power decades earlier.
RFK, Jr. argues in “The Real Anthony Fauci” that Anthony Fauci became one of the world’s most influential people in the early and mid 1980s when he leveraged “fear of AIDS” to dramatically increase the funding and influence of his obscure health agency.
Back then, the fear was everyone was at risk of dying from AIDS (or HIV).
Like 99 percent of society’s great “threats,” the notion that AIDS was a potential killer of everyone was preposterously wrong. AIDS is actually only a risk to promiscuous gay men and drug users who share dirty needles.
Celia Farber, a rare contrarian real journalist and author, has noted that the “death of (real) science” can be traced to Fauci’s “politicization” of science.
Until the Great AIDS Scare, science and medical bureaucracies didn’t have tremendous influence on all of our lives. Back then our great fear (kind of like today) was “Russia! Russia! Russia” except four decades ago it was “Soviet Union! Soviet Union! Soviet Union!”
Today’s Great Fear is respiratory viruses.
In 1984 (the year, not the novel), nobody thought alleged experts in some Alphabet Bureaucratic Agency would end up telling everyone 100 things they had to do … and 100 things we couldn’t do.
But fear is a powerful thing and that’s exactly what happened. Not only did it happen, hardly anyone questioned the power given to these “experts.” (And those who did question the authorized narrative …. suddenly had a lot to fear).
It’s still surreal to me that in the “Land of the Free” so few people fear the growth of the government …. or the growth of censorship.
Why did everyone suddenly become a huge fan of Bigger Government?
I’ve thought a good bit about how or why all the key organizations and corporations went along with the massive growth of government.
Again, fear must provide the answer.
One assumes Amazon, Wal-Mart, JP Morgan, the colleges, Facebook, Twitter and Google, etc. must have been motivated, in part, by fear as well.
What these companies probably all fear is getting on the wrong side of the world’s 900-pound gorilla – the federal government.
If one happens to fear some person or organization, one strategy might be to become friends or allies with this mean-spirited bully. If you are too scared to fight “City Hall” … go ahead and join forces with this behemoth. Which is exactly what happened … on a grand scale.
As it turns out, the people who lead mega companies and influential organizations also fear losing their power, status and wealth.
They also fear “competition.” If the government (via its policies and crony-benefitting decisions) can make it much less likely a competitor will take away your company’s market share, it probably makes economic sense to support this ally.
Once upon a time, political scientists defined this result as “fascism.” Fascism occurs when big government and big business join forces to protect and expand their influence.
I’ve also written a good bit about the power of “The Current Thing” (aka the “authorized narrative.”)
In today’s world, the vast majority of citizens possess a fear of going against the Current Thing. What these people really fear is being cast out out of the “herd” for challenging the thinking of the pack … or of the pack’s leader(s).
A key question for our times is who created all the false or dubious narratives in the first place.
I don’t think government officials birthed all of society’s fear-producing narratives. But government has the most power and, ultimately, matters most.
Put it this way, if George Soros, Bill Gates, BlackRock or the Davos club members are really the master puppeteer’s pulling the most-important strings, they still couldn’t do anything they want without an army of enforcers in government.
Two months ago I wrote a piece arguing that all the most important “truth-seeking” institutions in society now seemingly exist to conceal important truths. One of these institutions is “academia” or higher education.
But why did the key leaders of 99.9 percent of the colleges go along with 100-percent of the authorized Covid narratives?
Fear strikes again. The colleges were simply afraid to lose billions of dollars of research grants and federal funding, which they knew would happen if they bit the hand of the beast who was feeding them.
Which brings me to my final point of this meditation on fear: The people and organizations who rule the world are also motivated by great fears. Their fear is losing control, losing their lofty status in society’s hierarchy.
At some level, they must also fear legions of citizens going for those proverbial pitch forks and coming after them.
By now, practically every Substack author has opined on why Fox News executives decided to dismiss Tucker Carlson. (This despite the fact Carlson produced the most popular TV news talk show on the planet).
My best guess is that someone in some high place (inside this company or outside of it) had to be afraid of the scathing monologues Tucker was airing on a nightly basis.
Tucker’s segments were beginning to resonate with far too many people. And virtually all of his programs had one common theme:
“Folks,” argued Tucker, “It’s about time we started identifying the real Bad Guys who are ruining our world.”
What Tucker was really telling his sizable audience is that government – and all its sycophant cronies – were the real threat to our society.
So someone decided Tucker had to go.
Before this, someone decided that Jame O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, had to go.
Before that, someone figured out how to capture and neutralize The Drudge Report.
And before that someone decided that Julian Assange had to be locked up for life (for the crime of publishing true documents the Powers that Be didn’t want published.)
“Someone” also decided that social media and Big Tech had to heavily censor “dangerous misinformation” to “protect” people from the “harm” of free speech.
Until recent years, most Americans didn’t even know that free speech was that dangerous to them.
John and Nisha Whitehead just wrote an excellent essay which tells readers who is really afraid.
“The war on free speech is really a war on the right to criticize the government,” they wrote.
“… In fact, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.”
That is, the government (and all its many cronies) are afraid of any speech that doesn’t square with its own fear-producing narratives.
In short, the government is afraid of We the People.
More specifically, the government is afraid of large numbers of citizens shedding their irrational fears. If and when this happens, the majority of citizens may no longer run to their Nanny to protect them.
Tucker Carlson referenced this in his first tweet since being dismissed by Fox News. This message has now been viewed by more than 74 million people … so clearly Carlson’s message resonates with massive numbers of people.
The key message: There’s a lot more of us than there are of them. One suspects the people who benefit from selling fear also know this … which must be what scares the hell out of them.
The victor in the existential battle currently being waged will be determined by what message resonates with the most people – the government’s message (that only the government can save us all) … or the message being shared by the dissidents our government clearly fears.
If we’re all going to continue to be motivated by fear, let’s hope more people at least begin to fear our real enemy … which (great news) I think is starting to happen.
Kiev sends media ‘correct terminology’ instructions
RT | April 28, 2023
A list of “correct” phrases, narratives and names emailed to media outlets in Serbia is genuine and came at the instruction of the foreign ministry in Kiev, Ukraine’s embassy in Belgrade confirmed on Friday.
“It’s a recommendation we sent out to the media so that they would use correct terminology in their reporting regarding the war in Ukraine,” the embassy told the daily Novosti. According to RT Balkans, the email was sent to all print and electronic media in Serbia on Thursday.
According to the instructions, reporters should use “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine” instead of calling it a crisis, conflict, war, or even “Russian war in Ukraine.” Another guideline insists that “unprovoked full-scale military invasion” should be used instead of “special military operation.”
The Pentagon and multiple US and UK outlets already use this terminology, but it is unclear whether they adopted it on “recommendations” from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, or if it was the other way around.
The email comes after the US and the EU demanded Belgrade censor and ban Russian outlets such as RT Balkans and Sputnik, and crack down on ‘Russian narratives’ about Ukraine. While some Western-owned media in Serbia already use Kiev’s preferred phrasing, some outlets were offended by the embassy’s efforts to censor their reporting.
“Who are they to recommend to anyone how to work, or write?” Filip Rodic, the deputy head editor at Pecat magazine, told Novosti. “If they think they can censor the entire world, that’s total insanity.”
There was no explanation why the document sent to Serbian media was entirely in English, either. Some of the politically proscribed phrases in it – “the Ukraine,” for example – are already meaningless in Serbian, whose grammar has no articles. It is also a phonetic language that doesn’t spell, which makes the insistence on using Ukrainian spellings for place names – Horlivka and not Gorlovka, Kharkiv and not Kharkov, Mykolaiv and not Nikolaev, etc. – likewise not applicable.
In places, the document appears to confuse official narratives for recommended phrasing, demanding the use of “Ukraine’s legitimate efforts to de-occupy Crimea, which is a part of Ukraine’s sovereign territory within the internationally recognized borders,” in place of “Ukraine’s attacks on Crimea,” for example.
The government in Kiev has insisted for years on using its preferred phrases and place names, such as imposing “Kyiv” on English speakers. One prominent Ukrainian activist explained last month that language “plays a critical role” in the hybrid war, because it “creates a mental map in our mind which we use to make sense of what’s happening.”
“One of the best ways to support us is using Ukraine-centric terminology,” said Alona Shevchenko of Ukraine DAO.
Israel lobby piles pressure on Twitter, Facebook to ban Press TV
Press TV – April 27, 2023
Social media groups Facebook and Twitter have come under pressure from pro-Israel lobby groups to remove accounts of Iran’s leading broadcaster Press TV from their platforms.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCHD) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have demanded that Press TV be blocked for publishing content in Britain, The Telegraph reported Thursday.
ADL chief executive Jonathan Greenblatt said it was “inexcusable” to offer Press TV a platform.
“We urge Meta [the owner of Facebook] and Twitter to immediately launch an investigation and to take action to prevent Press TV and the Iranian other media outlets from misusing these social platforms.”
“Facebook and Twitter profit by providing Iranian state propagandists with the reach and amplification they need to evade domestic broadcast bans, and influence millions of new viewers in the West,” Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the CCHD, said.
Their concern is particularly focused around Press TV’s “Palestine Declassified” program, formerly hosted by former UK MP Chris Williamson and former Bristol University professor David Miller.
Williamson was suspended from the Labour Party after dismissing concerns about anti-Semitism in the party as “smears” and “bulls—.” And Miller was dismissed from Bristol University after he revealed Jewish students critical of his views were “directed by Israel.”
The groups cite an episode of the Press TV program devoted to unpacking the “witch hunt” in Labour and the way the party was “captured by key Israel lobby groups.”
Another episode dealt with a network of “Zionist” individuals and organizations which exerted a disproportionate influence over global affairs, including the West’s intervention in the Ukraine war and a “campaign to improve King Charles III’s image in the UK Muslim community.”
The groups are rattled by videos on Press TV’s program that exposes Jewish influence over global affairs and the entertainment industry.
In July 2013, Press TV was forced off the air in the UK after the media regulator Ofcom revoked its license for allegedly breaching the Communications Act.
In the same year, it was taken off the air in North America after the US Treasury Department announced sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).
Press TV was dropped from the Galaxy 19 satellite platform that allowed it to broadcast in the United States and Canada, without saying when it was dropped.
The network has denounced the measures as “media terrorism.”
The broadcaster has a large number of viewers across Western countries and a considerable number of followers on social media.
In December 2022, Firas al-Najim, a Canadian human rights advocate, said Press TV is the voice of the oppressed, a news network working to expose the crimes and double standards of the West against free nations.
Weeks after the European Union imposed sanctions on the leading broadcaster, French satellite operator Eutelsat notified Press TV of its plan to take the network off the air. Najim said then that the move unmasked the conspiracy of the Western governments.
Canada passes its duplicitous online censorship bill
The bill affects independent voices while suggesting it doesn’t
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | April 28, 2023
Canada’s controversial Online Streaming Act, Bill C-11, will become law.
Bill C-11 reforms the Broadcasting Act to apply to online content. Streaming services like YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix will be forced to follow the same rules that apply to traditional broadcasters and will be regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
Streaming services will be required to invest in and prioritize Canadian content. Critics of the bill have warned that it would negatively impact individual content creators and give the government control of the content Canadians see online.
“Liberal” politicians have said that it’s worth it.
Online platforms also criticized the bill, with YouTube running a campaign to warn content creators that the bill could affect their income.
The Senate proposed several amendments that were rejected by the lower chamber. However, the passed bill included “public assurance” that it “will not apply to user-generated digital content” because it doesn’t regulate the independent content uploaders themselves. However, it does apply to the platforms that these users upload their content to and so the independent creators are affected.
The government insisted that the bill contains adequate safeguards to protect individual content creators and rejected amendments with further protection because they would affect its ability to “publicly consult on, and issue, a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services.”
The bill gives the CRTC discretion to determine how to enforce it.
Only moments after the passing of the bill, groups that say they’re representing Canadian culture demanded more action. The lobbyists called for the CRTC to establish social media rules.
The Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (CDCE), said it “applauds the passage of Bill C-11,” but wants more.
“The CDCE celebrates a great day, but notes that the real work has just begun,” the lobbyists said, calling for more rules for social media.
“In the coming months, the government will issue a policy direction to the CRTC, and the latter will then have the important responsibility of developing the rules that will apply to each of the new services that are now clearly under its jurisdiction, i.e. audiovisual and audio streaming services and social media,” the group wrote in a press release.
The group then added that: “The CRTC will thus ensure that everyone makes a significant contribution to the creation, production and promotion of Canadian music, programs and films, while taking into account Canada’s unique diversity.”
In a statement, People’s Party of Canada leader, Maxime Bernier, said: “In the case of Bill C-11, it’s unfortunate that the majority of Senators caved in and voted for the bill even after the government had rejected a crucial amendment proposed by senators Julie Miville-Dechêne and Paula Simons to clarify that it would not be used to regulate independent creators on YouTube and other platforms, which would be a clear violation of free expression.”
Bernier added: “In the first place, there is absolutely no need for the government and the CRTC to tell platforms to modify their algorithms to promote Canadian content. Canadians can decide what they want for themselves without the government holding their hands. This is a first step in creating a wall around the Canadian internet like the Chinese government does in China.”
The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) said that it would repeal the bill if it forms a government.
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre said that, “the power-hungry Trudeau Liberals have rammed through their censorship bill into law. But this isn’t over, not by a long shot.”
Poilievre said that, if elected, his government would, “restore freedom of expression online & repeal Trudeau’s C-11 censorship law.”
ROBERT KENNEDY AND DONALD TRUMP – THE LEFT RIGHT PUNCH TO CORPORATIST FASCISM
By Rodney Atkinsonon | FreeNations | April 26, 2023
Corporatism, with its offspring Fascism and Nazism, is supported by totalitarians of the left and the right and its libertarian opponents also spring from the left and the right*. On “the left” both communists and welfare socialists oppose corporatism and on “the right” democratic enterprise capitalists and small businesses fight corporatism.
We now have in the USA two Presidential candidates who cut across the corrupted party system which – in all so called “democratic” western countries – have combined in a corporatist conspiracy against their peoples, giving them a vote but no choice.
The US Presidential system gives the people a better chance of voting for a complete philosophical change – or at least openly challenge the status quo. And at last we now have on both the traditional “left” (Democrat Party) and the traditional “right” (the Republican Party) individuals who threaten the corporatist Establishment – Donald Trump and Robert F Kennedy Jnr.
In his recent presidential candidacy launch speech in Boston Kennedy lambasted
- the partnerships of corporations and governments to swindle and gaslight the public;
- the reckless military adventurism-for-profit campaign that has bankrupted the USA, now culminating in the Ukraine fiasco;
- the botched response to Covid-19 and the corporate chicanery that induced it;
- the financial corruption that is driving America into inflation and bankruptcy.
He recognises the State corporate axis which is increasingly unchallengeable democratically and the politicised media which silence dissent and alternatives in policy, science, intellectual life and medicine.
Like Donald Trump, who was banned from Twitter, Kennedy was banned from Youtube and Instagram. Trump was a reluctant Covid “Lockdowner’ and Kennedy points to the terrible consequences for health – lockdowns were:
“a war on American children,” citing a Brown University study that found toddlers lost 22 IQ points. “Children all over the country have missed their milestones” because of the lockdowns. “What is the CDC’s response? The CDC five months ago revised its milestones so that now a child no longer is expected to walk at 1 year … they walk at 18 months. And a child now does not have to have 50 words in 24 months, it’s 30 months. So instead of fixing the problem, they are trying to cover it up.”
Just as Donald Trump has been the victim of provenly fallacious deep state and msm scams like the Steele dossier, the Russian interference lie and “the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation” lie (as Mike Morell a former CIA director has just admitted) so Kennedy is accused of being an “anti vaxxer” and peddler of “misinformation”.
Kennedy reminded his audience of his father’s and his uncle’s treatment by the Deep state which they both sought to oppose and bring under democratic control – and both paying with their lives. John F Kennedy had threatened “to shred the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the four winds”.
The hatred of some Establishment Republicans for Donald Trump, the disruptor on the “right”, mirrors Kennedy’s unpopularity among “the Left”.
Who said this?
“we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.”
“For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
“Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land”
Well those words could have been said by either Kennedy or Trump because they both identify the centralised, unchallengeable corporate State, run to the benefit of both left and right establishments as the enemy of the people in a country where democratic accountability has given way to corporatist fascism, both in domestic and international affairs. Both Trump and Kennedy oppose reckless foreign interventions and their enormous cost. Both would be peacemakers.
In fact the above words are from President Donald Trump’s Inauguration address.
* The almost total irrelevance of the notions of “left” and “right” I set out in my 1988 book The Emancipated Society, advocating in place of the “horizontal” left right paradigm the “vertical” authoritarian-libertarian axis.
Is It Time for Unemployed Tucker Carlson to Enter the U.S. Political Fray?
By Robert Bridge | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 27, 2023
This week, Fox News axed without warning or explanation its highest-rated talk show host, Tucker Carlson. Tragic as that may be for his legion of listeners, Carlson now has a chance to not only question America, but to change it.
It looks as though the establishment – the Deep State, the Swamp, the Nursing Home for Octogenarian Ice Cream Lovers, call it what you will – has finally found a way to eliminate Tucker Carlson and his heretical views once and for all.
Just days after Fox News’ nearly billion-dollar settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over election-fraud allegations, Carlson was handed his walking papers. Here we have yet another case of a corporation inexplicably killing the goose that lays golden eggs. A bit like the Bud Light transgender advertisement, mega-corporations don’t willfully torpedo their bottom line without very good reason. For the left, the sacrifice was made on behalf of increasingly entrenched woke principles; on the right, the sacrifice was made to ouster a man who endangered American foreign policy, domestic policy, and everything in between.
Thus, the most likely explanation for Carlson’s termination is that he was making the wrong people, including his boss, Rupert Murdoch, very uncomfortable, and not just over rigged election claims. After all, many other personalities from the right-wing channel, like Sean Hannity and Linda Ingraham, also suggested in no uncertain terms that it was impossible that Joe Biden, an historically unlikable figure who mostly campaigned from his basement amid the Covid epidemic, could have attracted more votes than any other presidential candidate in U.S. history. Yet it was Carlson who got the boot, and that should come as no surprise.
For many years, Tucker Carlson, 53, remained a great enigma inside of the murky underworld of the U.S. mainstream media. While many of his colleagues were forced to wander aimlessly and sheepishly around a heavily patrolled, corporate-owned reservation, Carlson seemed to have been granted special privileges to freely speak his mind about the most taboo topics – from the sweeping Covid crackdowns to the blank-check policy for the Ukrainian “destroyer” Vladimir Zelensky. These outbursts of fierce criticism, far detached from the carefully crafted ideology of the establishment, allowed Carlson’s opponents to portray him somewhere between controlled opposition and a full-blown conspiracy theorist. Yet these attacks on his character did nothing to diminish his popularity in the eyes of the public.
It seems that Carlson’s popularity stems from the fact that audiences can see that this guy is the real deal. Although not perfect – who is? – he comes across as an honest and straight-shooting observer of the U.S. cultural and political scene, and totally fearless in calling out bullshit, even when it happens to be his own bullshit. In a recent interview, Carlson had harsh words not only for his odious trade, but for himself as well.
Looking back on his career, Carlson called the mainstream media a “control apparatus,” a disturbing conclusion that he made “only late in life.”
“They are working for a small group of people who actually run the world. They’re their servants, their Praetorian Guard, and we should treat them with the maximum contempt,” he said, while admitting to his own naïve assumptions early in his career.
“Not only are [the media] part of the problem, but I spent most of my life being part of the problem – defending the Iraq War, I actually did that!’
So in keeping with this article’s main thesis, that Carlson should now consider a political run, it must be noted that here is a man who can admit he was wrong. Very few journalists, not to mention politicians, have such strength, which so many view today as an actual weakness.
The second quality that sets Carlson apart from the pack is his courage, another essential attribute for a political career.
Back in 2020, following the death of George Floyd during an attempted arrest by a white cop, and the consequential street violence that erupted coast-to-coast, the former Fox host said what so many people were thinking, yet lacked the courage to articulate.
Carlson dared to say that the rioting and looting that destroyed thousands of homes and businesses during the BLM protests was “definitely not about black lives.” He went on to say that it was necessary to tell the truth when confronted by “the mob,” otherwise “they will crush you.”
Whenever it is suggested that Tucker Carlson possesses the personal qualifications to be a fine politician, the canned response is that he merely recites words on a teleprompter, not unlike so many other has-been politicians today. Yet just days before he was unceremoniously discharged from Fox News, Carlson gave an address to the Heritage Foundation on the occasion of the conservative organization’s 50th anniversary. Carlson’s oratory could have been a political stump speech, as it touched upon the greatest fears of the political right, and that is the power of wokeism to fundamentally alter, if not destroy, the United States.
Without once resorting to prepared notes or a teleprompter, Carlson spelled out with refreshing articulation – a political quality in short supply these days – the dangers facing the nation.
“I’m not calling for religious war,” Carlson began, “I’m merely calling for an acknowledgement of what we’re watching… I’m just noting what’s super obvious, like those of us who are in our mid-fifties are caught in the past in the way that we think about this. [The Left] doesn’t want a debate. Those ideas won’t produce outcomes that any rational person would want under any circumstances. Those are manifestations of some larger force acting upon us.”
Probably the very same “larger force” that was responsible for Carlson’s current unemployment status.
Ironically, Carlson’s very last guest on his eponymous show, aside from a pizza delivery guy who helped police make an arrest, was the vaccine skeptic Bobby Kennedy, who just last week launched his 2024 campaign for the Democratic nomination for president.
Here is what Kennedy had to say about Carlson’s firing:
“Fox fires @TuckerCarlson five days after he crosses the red line by acknowledging that the TV networks pushed a deadly and ineffective vaccine to please their Pharma advertisers. Carlson’s breathtakingly courageous April 19 monologue 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.”
Now if Kennedy were smart, which he certainly is, he’d be talking to Carlson right now about a possible joint run to unseat the Biden regime. Personally, I don’t see how it could possibly fail.
Tucker Carlson’s Clip on His Fox News Exit Gets More Views Than Biden’s 2024 Bid Video
Sputnik – 28.04.2023
Fox News announced Tucker Carlson’s departure on April 24, sparking speculation across the US media landscape about the possible reasons for the network’s decision.
Renowned American TV presenter Tucker Carlson, made a stunning exit from Fox News and released an explanation video that has garnered over 62 million views, surpassing Biden’s announcement that he will run in the next presidential election by about 1.5 times.
The former Fox News presenter published the video on Wednesday evening, a day after Biden’s announcement, but still surpassed it in popularity with ease. Carlson described how the US media stifles conversation on critical topics.
Following Carlson’s abrupt departure, Fox News saw a significant drop in its ratings, with Carlson Tonight having averaged 3.7 million viewers, and Carlson’s former colleague Brian Kilmeade’s show hitting only 2.6 million, resulting in a 30% audience decline. As a result, Fox Corp. shares also plummeted by 5.4%, with the media company’s losses over the ordeal estimated to be as high as $507 million.
Media report that investors are buying stocks in the video platform Rumble and Digital World Acquisition, which is merging with Trump Media, after news broke regarding job proposals Carlson had received.
Ex-US Army Psyops Expert: Fox News Fired Carlson to Maintain “Semi Lobotomized Quasi Retarded Population”
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | April 27, 2023
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.”
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.
Moscow responds to EU call for Serbia to ban Russian media
RT | April 27, 2023
The European Parliament’s insistence that Serbia censor RT Balkans and Sputnik in order to “harmonize” with the EU is absurd, evil, and a manifestation of imperialism and colonialism, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has claimed.
On Wednesday, the parliament’s foreign affairs committee adopted the report by Slovakian MEP Vladimir Bilcik, criticizing Serbia for not joining the EU sanctions against Russia and demanding Belgrade shut down Russian “disinformation” outlets just as the bloc has done. The US State Department has also called for a ban on RT Balkans.
“It’s an absurd situation,” Zakharova told reporters at the daily briefing in Moscow on Thursday. “These statements speak for themselves. The West isn’t even hiding, but saying the quiet part out loud.”
The US and the EU are now openly saying that Russia, Russian culture and language, or Russian media and journalists, simply shouldn’t exist, Zakharova noted. She compared the European Parliament’s demands to calls by Ukrainian officials to “exterminate” the Russian population in Crimea and Donbass, saying they can only be described as “evil.”
“The only possible thing to say is that this is an imperialist point of view, a manifestation of neo-colonialism. Some countries, without any moral grounds, illegally arrogate to themselves the right to model the world and its development at their own discretion: who can live, speak, trade, produce, have children, and who cannot,” Zakharova told reporters. “This is a modern version of slavery, in which the colonial powers claim the right to be considered masters, and others – their slaves.”
“Those who like these rules of the game have the right to play by them. We don’t. This is what we rebelled against.”
The US and its allies, Zakharova argued, want Russia to have no opportunity to speak, because the very existence of Russian media threatens the Western plans for narrative manipulation.
“Our media, journalists and outlets report from the epicenters of world events, based on facts, encourage people to critically evaluate reality (as they should),” the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said. “Apparently, this goes against the plans that the American rulers have to ‘zombify’ their own population.”
American television, Zakharova noted, presents a “a one-sided, practically sterilized, filtered and adjusted picture of the world,” having reached an “ideological dead end.” Any airing of alternative viewpoints threatens to expose this media ecosystem as biased and contradictory.
RT Balkans began operations in November 2022. The EU reportedly plans to blacklist the outlet as part of its 11th package of sanctions against Russia. The bloc had banned all broadcasting activities by RT and Sputnik in March 2022, calling them “Russian propaganda” that endangered Ukraine. Major social media platforms have blocked RT accounts in the bloc, while YouTube extended the ban globally.
Featured Video
Ivermectin and iodine
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
UAE tortured, killed journalist for opposing Israel normalization
The Cradle | October 31, 2026
UAE security officers detained, tortured, and killed Emirati poet and news editor Habib al-Sayegh in August 2019, shortly after he published a column opposing UAE normalization with Israel, according to a newly published book.
“Princes and Thieves,” a book by investigative journalist Matthew Cole published on 25 October, alleges that UAE security officers raided Sayegh’s Abu Dhabi home shortly after the publication of the column, hooded him in front of his wife and took him to a detention facility where he was tortured to death.
His interrogators reportedly pulled out several of his teeth with pliers and beat him repeatedly with a sharp metal object.
On 11 August 2019, Sayegh criticized the UAE’s plan to normalize relations with Israel as part of the Abraham Accords in his weekly column for Khaleej newspaper. The column was titled “Israel Is Our Real Enemy and A Dangerous Project.”
Sayegh described Israel as “a real and natural enemy” while questioning “who authorized the normalizers to speak on behalf of everyone?”
Nine days after the column was published, Emirati state media announced his death, without stating a cause. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Ivermectin and iodine
- Congratulations climate skeptics — you are a ‘Hybrid weapon of war’ and a growing public health threat
- ‘The Arab Vote’: How Israeli Racism Has Ruined Their Elections
- Israel forces Palestinians in Gaza to choose between assassination alone or death with their families: Report
- US Approves Sale of 500 Patriot Missiles to Ukraine, Deliveries May Take Years
- German Imperialism: An Urgent Explainer
- Backed by AAP, West Virginia Proposal Would Allow Dental Hygienists to Give HPV Vaccine to 9-Year-Olds
- Poland Is the Symptom and Europe Is the Patient
- UAE security forces tortured, killed journalist for opposing Israel normalization: Report
- They Compared the Spice to the Drug. The Spice Won — Again. (Part 2)
- If Americans Knew
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- 1,300 will gather in Palo Alto on Nov. 1 for Z3 Conference on Zionism
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- The Long Arm of AIPAC
- Genocidal intent behind Hebron assault, rights group says
- This week, Israel killed 8-year-old who survived bombing that wiped out her family
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- Israeli soldier poses at damaged Lebanon church, sparking anger
- New Report. Manufacturing the Great Replacement: Is Israel behind one of the largest racist influence campaigns ever documented?
- ‘Arab voice doesn’t count’: Jewish Israeli blocs reject Palestinian support
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
