SXSW Is Accused of Using Copyright and Trademark Claims To Suppress Criticism
Copyright and trademark strikes are increasingly being used to force content takedowns
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | March 15, 2024
In a contentious battle over the use of copyright claims to suppress speech, South by Southwest (SXSW), an organizer of a popular annual conference and music festival in Austin, has found itself facing some backlash due to its connections with arms manufacturers that supply Israel.
Rather than responding to the criticism directly, or simply ignoring it, SXSW attempted to get the criticism hidden with questionable legal tactics against a local advocacy group, Austin for Palestine Coalition.
This group has been organizing protests against SXSW, employing strategies such as organizing rallies and spreading awareness through social media.
Austin for Palestine’s social media campaign notably includes altered versions of SXSW’s arrow logo, now featuring fighter jets stained with blood, and other images that mimic SXSW’s marketing style but juxtaposed with stark symbols like bombs or bleeding doves.
This bold visual commentary quickly drew a legal reaction from SXSW. The festival sent a cease-and-desist letter to the advocacy group, alleging trademark and copyright infringement, demanding the removal of these posts.
Additionally, Instagram notified Austin for Palestine about SXSW’s claim on their posts.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), SXSW’s copyright infringement claims are baseless. Fundamental elements like their arrow logo do not qualify for copyright protection. Even if SXSW’s allegations targeted the group’s adaptation of their promotional style, such mimicry is arguably not eligible for copyright protection.
Moreover, these posts exemplify non-infringing fair use. Notably, the advocacy group’s use of these materials serves a distinctly different purpose from their original intent, causing no harm to SXSW beyond potential reputation damage, which does not constitute a valid copyright complaint.
Read the EFF’s letter to SXSW here.
German teen pulled out of classroom and questioned by police for TikTok post stating Germany is her home
BY THOMAS BROOKE | REMIX NEWS | MARCH 15, 2024
Three police officers stormed a German high school last month and took a 16-year-old girl out of class to question her about a TikTok video she posted in which she called Germany her home and not just a place on a map.
The incident occurred on Feb. 27 at the Richard Wossidlo High School in Ribnitz-Damgarten, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.
In an interview with the German news outlet Junge Freiheit, the mother of the student explained how her daughter had been suspected of spreading “unconstitutional content on social media.”
The school principal had been made aware of her TikTok account and “informed the police about a possible criminal matter,” Marcel Opitz, the press spokesman for Stralsund police station, told the site.
The offensive content is understood to have been two posts. The first included a joke about how the Smurfs and Germany have something in common; they are both blue — an apparent reference to support for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party whose primary color is blue. The AfD is now a mainstream party across Germany and sits second in national polls, much to the irritation of the German political and media establishment.
The second post saw the German teen seemingly innocuously refer to Germany as her home and not just a place on a map.
The 16-year-old was subsequently apprehended at her school in front of classmates and given what the police explained to Junge Freiheit when asked what they described as a “risk of harm” talk by officers.
“I am horrified,” the girl’s mother said. “This is such violent, if I may say so, Stasis shit, I would never have believed what was done to my daughter here possible in my entire life.
“My daughter posted a Smurfs video on TikTok a few months ago. It said that the Smurfs and Germany have something in common: The Smurfs are blue and so is Germany. That was probably a funny AfD advertising post. And then, she once posted that Germany is not a place, but a home.”
The mother explained how, according to her daughter, “three police officers suddenly appeared in the classroom and picked her up,” escorting her away “like she’s a criminal… That’s what made me so incredibly angry.”
The girl was reportedly told by police that “for her own protection” she should “refrain from posting such posts in the future,” but accepted that she had not committed a criminal offense.
However, the state interior minister, Christian Pegel, said he had “no problems” with the police’s behavior of coming to the girl’s classroom and pulling her, saying their approach to the threat was “proportionate.”
“I believe that proportionality was maintained,” he stated.
When the mother questioned the school principal and told him to contact her first if he thought there was a problem, he “told me that he wasn’t allowed to do that, he was told to inform the police immediately.”
Both the school and its principal declined to issue a statement to the German press on the matter, but the issue has now been brought by the AfD to the state parliament.
“This scandalous incident reveals that our schools are being used more and more to sniff out attitudes,” said Enrico Schult, the party’s education policy spokesman. “If there was actually an order from the Ministry of Education about this, it must have political consequences.
“A headmaster should stand in front of his students and at least take the parents into his confidence first, instead of calling three police officers because he receives an anonymous denunciation email about a student,” he added.
Confusion reigns between “indemnity” and “immunity”
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | March 12, 2024
We sporadically hear of vaccine injury cases in the UK being contemplated or even launched against covid vaccine manufacturers. We also frequently hear people say that “the covid vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued as they have an indemnity”.
It is very important that this be clarified. An indemnity is not the same as immunity.
In the USA manufacturers have immunity (which can potentially be attacked under certain circumstances – such as in the presence of fraud) imposed by a law known as “The PREP Act”. Immunity is a legal shield. The law simply provides that “these manufacturers shall not have any civil liability”.
But in the UK the manufacturers do not have such immunity. What they have – in their contracts with the UK government – is an indemnity. An indemnity is an agreement that one party shall cover the losses of the other.
In this case it provides that the UK government will pay any damages which the manufacturers are liable to pay to claimants if they are sued. But it doesn’t stop anyone actually suing the manufacturers – it just means that any damages awarded are actually paid by the government (and ultimately by the beleaguered taxpayers). In exchange for this, the government gets to control and direct the defence to any claim – as well as paying the legal bills!
This has a number of implications including these:
- If the government is “on the hook” it may well either directly or indirectly pressure the judicial system so that these cases are impeded in some way. We can hope this is not the case, but experience of other legal cases over the past few years suggests this might be naive.
- If the government sees many claims incoming they may try to “pick off” some more obvious ones and put a “line in the sand”, setting quite a high bar for claimants in an attempt to limit the size of the eventual claims.
- On the other hand, if they see a huge number of claims, they may choose to “fight to the death”.
- One other scenario is that they eventually decide they were duped and they then just tell the manufacturers they are no longer honouring the indemnity.
It is also important to recognise that in the UK Parliament makes, amends, and annuls laws at will. There is nothing – except politics – to stop them just going to the manufacturers and threatening to change the law so as to hold them responsible for claims, and that they will make them easier for claimants (perhaps by extending the “limitation period” – normally 3 years – by which a claim has to be lodged or else it become time-barred). This could, for example, be used as leverage to get the manufacturers to set up schemes of compensation.
Generally speaking, retroactive changes to laws are considered undesirable as they could make companies reluctant to do business in a particular country, since companies prefer legal certainty before committing capital; in this case however it is possible that the political imperative becomes so great that the government is effectively forced into ensuring that the injured receive proper recompense and that the manufacturer – not the taxpayer – foots the bill.
Canadian, Irish, French Government-Attempted Speech Regulations Appear Like Desperate Censorship Power Plays
BY JEFFEREY JAXEN | MARCH 12, 2024
Following in the footsteps of UKs highly controversial Online Safety Act, now law, Canadian and Irish government officials are proposing legislation that would push the boundaries to further stifle online debate.
During the COVID response, the American government chose to erect a massive, top-down censorship industrial complex pulling in key White House officials, CDC heads, and the Department of Homeland Security.
In the UK, it was all-out military psychological operations using the British Army unit’s 77th Brigade and Specialist Group Military Intelligence. Both countries turned their security apparatuses, once used against foreign enemy combatants, to target its own public domestically in an aggressive move to shape public thought and neutralize independent voices.
Now, humanity is at an inflection point. A non-stop blitzkrieg of contentious issues are affecting the lives of many. The failed COVID response taught us that open conversation and investigation is critical to unwind industry talking points, government propaganda, and scientific falsehoods.
Perhaps more important, the new public square, that is the digital age of social media, serves as a steam valve to debate valid concerns surrounding charged issues like climate change and the net zero push, open migration, vaccine safety, reckless government monetary policy, election meddling, the surgical and pharmaceutical fast track of gender-affirming care for minors, intelligence agency run ‘disclosure,’ and so much more.
Meanwhile, power centers are desperate to take all the above issues and funnel vocal detractors from the dominant narrative into one category – hate.
Over the years, governments have gleefully began attaching the ‘hate’ label onto any person, topic, or explanation that runs counter to the single, myopic version of events, ideas, information, or even historical events they deem fact – despite valid evidence proving otherwise.
Socially, the ‘it’s all hateful except for our viewpoint’ worked for corporations, governments, and legacy media operations when they enjoyed narrative control.
Those days are fleeting now and major cracks have formed upon once-settled topics. Now we see the grip tightening from the legislative angle to create more bureaucracy and new powers to punish.
Canada’s Bill C-63 enacts what’s called the Online Harms Act, amends the Criminal Code, and the Canadian Human Rights Act among other things. It also attempts to define and legislate a human emotion stating:
“hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”
Meanwhile, C-63 states that an “Offense motivated by hatred… under this Act or any other Act of Parliament”…carries with a penalty of “imprisonment for life.”
Other goodies written into the bill are the creation of an extrajudicial government tribunal to rule on complaints of threats, intimidation or discrimination from people who can remain anonymous. That’s right, no need to face your accuser says Canada.
If one is accused by the government’s newly-created, extrajudicial group to be “engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice,” they can be ordered, as the bill states, “to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim identified” and “to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General.”
No room for abuse here. What could go wrong?
One would think this would be a one-off piece of speech-chilling legislation from a country that has lost its way under poor leadership. Yet Ireland is also attempting a similar move with mirrored legislative language.
Ireland’s Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill is currently before the upper house of the Irish legislature. The Critic writes the law, if enacted, “…would usher in a dangerous new standard for state-driven censorship. The expression or possession of content or even ideas deemed “hateful” would be illegal under the law, with serious implications for everyday people…”
An opinion piece published in The Hill writes:
“As per the tentative legislation, people with “protected characteristics” which includes, inter alia, race, color, and nationality are afforded new legal protections against psychical and mentally inflicted harms, in which offenders are motivated by “hatred.””
It continues by stating:
“As such, Ireland’s police force, An Garda Síochána, will have the authority under the bill to raid the home of the possessor of such material, demand their password and seize their devices. Failure to comply could result in a year-long prison sentence.”
The reason for the sudden Orwellian about face given by Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar was that Ireland needed to “… modernise our laws against incitement to hatred and hatred in general.”
Despite the weak cover stories governments are using to capture speech and attempt to regain narrative control, a clear pattern is being seen – open debate is dangerous to the dwindling control of power centers.
The fun doesn’t stop there.
Article 18 of the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty also stipulates that all countries signed on to the power-centralizing agreement are mandated to “… combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation” and “inform policies on factors that hinder adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions.”
Finally, a bill in the works in France appears to be a special gift for pharmaceutical companies. Article 4 of the bill specifically states:
Provocation, by means of repeated pressure or maneuvers, of any person suffering from a pathology to abandon or abstain from following medical treatment is punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros. therapeutic or prophylactic, when this abandonment or abstention is presented as beneficial for the health of the person concerned whereas it is, in the state of medical knowledge, clearly likely to cause for them, taking into account the pathology of which they is affected, particularly serious consequences for their physical or psychological health.
As written, it appears that any criticism of vaccine products, SSRIs, statins, opioids, drugs and procedures used to transition children, or just about any other product or medical practice that has debatable concerns and unsettled science surrounding it – if currently accepted in ‘medical knowledge’ – is a protected class not to be spoken ill about.
“When the provocation provided for in the first two paragraphs has been followed by effects, the penalties are increased to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros.” states the proposed French law.
The coincidental timing over the past few years of several pieces of legislation whose effect will be to essentially chill freedom of speech in the end equation must be taken seriously. The good news is that individuals at all levels of society are sounding the alarm to critically analyze and reject all attempts at overarching control over basic human rights – no matter how well packaged and intentioned they may initially seem.
Harvard Fires Professor Who Co-wrote Great Barrington Declaration
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 12, 2024
Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., an epidemiologist and professor of Medicine at Harvard University, on Monday confirmed the university fired him.
Kulldorff has been a critic of lockdown policies, school closures and vaccine mandates since early in the COVID-19 pandemic. In October 2020, he published the Great Barrington Declaration, along with co-authors Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D., and Stanford epidemiologist and health economist Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D.
In an essay published Monday in City Journal, Kulldorff wrote that his anti-mandate position got him fired from the Mass General Brigham hospital system, where he also worked, and consequently from his Harvard faculty position.
Kulldorff detailed how his commitment to scientific inquiry put him at odds with a system that he alleged had “lost its way.”
“I am no longer a professor of medicine at Harvard,” Kulldorff wrote. “The Harvard motto is Veritas, Latin for truth. But, as I discovered, truth can get you fired.”
He noted that it was clear from early 2020 that lockdowns would be futile for controlling the pandemic.
“It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage, not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health,” Kulldorff wrote.
“We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world — all will suffer.”
That viewpoint got little debate in the mainstream media until the epidemiologist and his colleagues published the Great Barrington Declaration, signed by nearly 1 million public health professionals from across the world.
The document made clear that no scientific consensus existed for lockdown measures in a pandemic. It argued instead for a “focused protection” approach for pandemic management that would protect high-risk populations, such as elderly or medically compromised people, and otherwise allow the COVID-19 virus to circulate among the healthy population.
Although the declaration merely summed up what previously had been conventional wisdom in public health, it was subject to tremendous backlash. Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Dr. Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institutes of Health called for a “devastating published takedown” of the declaration and of the authors, who were subsequently slandered in mainstream and social media.
Collins and other figures, including Dr. Rochelle Walensky who would go on to head up the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the pandemic, sought to undermine their credibility, Kulldorff wrote.
His tweets contradicting CDC policy that people with natural immunity must be vaccinated were flagged by the Virality Project, a government front group, and censored by Twitter.
“At this point, it was clear that I faced a choice between science or my academic career,” Kulldorff wrote. “I chose the former. What is science if we do not humbly pursue the truth?”
Kulldorff said he was also fired from the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group because he disagreed with the decision to completely pause the Johnson & Johnson adenovirus COVID-19 vaccine after a safety signal was detected for blood clots in women under 50.
He spoke out in op-eds and social media to argue the Johnson & Johnson shot should remain available for older Americans alongside the Pfizer and Moderna shots — the only other shots available in the U.S. market.
While Kulldorff’s arguments advocating the Johnson & Johnson vaccines may be flawed, investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel wrote today on his Substack, Kulldorff’s story reveals a “more powerful truth.”
“He found out the hard way that there is no crossing the tracks of the institutional freight train that is the Big Pharma-Government Health system of institutional capture that persists in America today,” Schachtel wrote.
“He threatened the gravy train that produced hundreds of billions of lawsuit-protected taxpayer dollars that were making their way to Pfizer and Moderna,” Schachtel added. “And for that sin, he was swiftly removed from his role on the CDC working group.”
Harvard also denied Kulldorff’s vaccine exemption requests. He publicly opposed the Harvard mandates and pushed for the university to rehire those who were fired and to eliminate its mandate for students.
The university last week dropped its COVID-19 mandate for students.
“Veritas has not been the guiding principle of Harvard leaders,” Kulldorff concluded. “Nor have academic freedom, intellectual curiosity, independence from external forces, or concern for ordinary people guided their decisions.”
To right the wrongs that have been done, he said, the broader scientific community must restore academic freedom and end “cancel culture.”
“Science cannot survive in a society that does not value truth and strive to discover it,” he wrote. “The scientific community will gradually lose public support and slowly disintegrate in such a culture.”
Harvard Medical School did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Biden’s ‘Nighttime in America’ State of the Union
By Ron Paul | Institute for Peace and Prosperity | March 11, 2024
Last week President Biden delivered a dark and angry speech meant to convince the low percentage of Americans who still feel positive about his presidency that everything is fine and will only get better if he is re-elected for a second term.
Unfortunately we have come a long way from the optimism of a Ronald Reagan, who won a second term partially on the popularity of his “Morning in America” campaign commercials. Reagan was far from a perfect president, but it was that sense of optimism in otherwise difficult times that resulted in a record re-election victory. Biden’s speech, by contrast, was dark and angry, attacking not only his political opponents but even seeming to threaten the Supreme Court!
As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley observed recently, “In some ways, the State of the Union speech may have died when former Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up the address of former President Donald Trump… While many in the media celebrated her lack of decorum and respect, she tore up something far more important than a speech. She shredded decades of tradition of civility and any remaining residue of restraint in our politics.”
We seem to be becoming a nation that would rather scream at each other than listen to each other.
The message of Biden’s speech was that if you do not support the re-election of Joe Biden, you are an insurrectionist and hate America and democracy. Seven years after the launch of the “Russiagate” hoax against then-candidate Donald Trump, it becomes clearer that the line “our democracy” means it’s only democratic when their side gets elected.
It is understandable that Biden is so angry. Despite all the lying with statistics about the economy, Americans can clearly see for themselves how inflation is undermining the standard of living. Of course this is not all Biden’s fault – Republicans in control of the House show little interest in cutting spending – but people generally blame the president for the state of the economy.
We are no better off on foreign policy either. President Biden started his speech by comparing Russian President Vladimir Putin with Hitler, claiming that Putin is “on the march” in Europe just as Hitler was in 1941, and that just as in those days, if he is not stopped in Ukraine he will continue to rampage through the continent. It was blatant fearmongering, based on no evidence. In fact, as Putin told Tucker Carlson just weeks ago, he has no interest in taking the war beyond Ukraine. But Biden is determined to spend another $61 billion on the failed proxy war in Ukraine and he is willing to say whatever he feels necessary to get that money.
Biden also introduced a bizarre plan to build a temporary pier on the shores of Gaza so that the US could deliver aid to starving Palestinians. Considering the billions of dollars and tens of thousands of missiles we have shipped to Israel, wouldn’t it just be easier to inform the Israeli prime minister that we would either be delivering aid to Palestinians over land, or else?
In all, Biden’s final State of the Union before the election reveals a president and administration that is out of gas and out of ideas. It also reveals a country deep in bankruptcy – both moral and economic. It is high time for a nationwide movement toward liberty.
New York’s Attorney General Makes A Fool Of The Governor
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | March 2, 2024
Two weeks ago, on February 16, in a case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, Justice Arthur Engoron of the New York State Supreme Court issued his decision ordering Donald Trump to pay some $355 million of “disgorgement” penalties. The stated basis for imposing these extraordinary penalties was Trump’s supposed “fraud” of exaggerating the value of some of his properties on financial statements submitted to a bank. No one had been damaged by Trump’s conduct, and the bank in question had neither complained nor sought any relief; however, the Attorney General asserted, and the judge agreed, that a legal basis existed for imposing the penalties under New York’s Executive Law Section 63(12), which allows the AG to prosecute “persistent fraud or illegality” without need for showing traditional elements of fraud like intent and damages, let alone a victim.
The issuance of Justice Engoron’s decision brought forth an immediate reaction from many quarters (Manhattan Contrarian ). James had campaigned for office on a platform of “getting Trump,” a major political adversary, and had sought and obtained penalties far larger than any previously awarded under this statute, for conduct far less egregious. If the AG can use a broad statute to target a politically-disfavored individual like Trump in this way, how could any person doing business in New York think they are safe from similar legal abuse?
Recognizing the problem, our lightweight Governor Kathy Hochul went on a radio talk show on February 18 in an effort to reassure the New York business community. RealClearPolitics on February 19 has an audio clip and a partial transcript of Governor Hochul’s remarks. The key line was that Trump’s case was an “extraordinary, unusual circumstance,” and therefore “law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers . . . have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”
Law-abiding New Yorkers “have nothing to worry about”? Really, Governor Hochul? AG James waited all of ten days before making a complete fool of Hochul. On February 28 James dropped her latest over-the-top politicized case. The new target is something called JBS USA Food Company Holdings — the U.S. subsidiary of the world’s largest producer of beef. Here is the AG’s press release announcing the filling of the case; and here is a copy of the Complaint.
The crazed and delusional ambition evidenced in this case is even wilder than what was just seen in the Trump case. This time we’re not just going to keep a hated politician out of office; we’re going to save the planet!
From the press release:
JBS USA has claimed that it will achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, despite documented plans to increase production, and therefore increase its carbon footprint. Beef production emits the most greenhouse gasses of any major food commodity, and animal agriculture accounts for 14.5 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. In 2021, the JBS Group, JBS USA’s global parent company, reported total global greenhouse gas emissions of over 71 million tons, more than the total emissions of some countries. Attorney General James seeks to stop JBS USA from continuing these false and misleading marketing practices, pay disgorgement of all ill-gotten profits, and penalties.
The heart of the alleged “fraud” is JBS’s claim that it plans to achieve “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. From Complaint, paragraphs 6 and 7:
6. Across its marketing materials, the JBS Group has made sweeping representations to consumers about its commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, claiming that it will be “Net Zero by 2040.”
7. The JBS Group, however, has had no viable plan to meet its commitment to be “Net Zero by 2040.”
And from there, this case then turns into Trump 2.0. They have learned how to do this in the Trump case and they are following the form. Like the Trump case, this case is at least in theory civil, rather than criminal. The main legal basis? You guessed it — Executive Law Section 63(12). And the main relief sought? You guessed it again — “disgorgement.” Hey, if they can draw Engoron as the judge they might get an order requiring JBS to “disgorge” all of its revenues for the last 20 years. This time it will be in the multi-billions of dollars. That’ll teach them!
And so, Governor Hochul, is there anything “extraordinary and unusual” about JBS? Definitely not, any more than there was about Trump. Surely now every other beef company is in line for the same treatment, and every other food company right after that. And why stop there? Every company that has made any kind of promises of “net zero” by some far out date will be an obvious target. That’s a very large numbers of companies. And even the ones who haven’t promised “net zero” have almost always made some kind of promise of greenhouse gas reductions, none of which are achievable in the real world.
And guess what entity has made the most extreme promises of “net zero” that can’t possibly be met? That would be the State of New York. As discussed here in many prior posts (examples here, here and here), New York in 2019 adopted a Climate Act, committing the State to “net zero” emissions by 2050, and in 2022 adopted a Scoping Plan supposedly laying out how we are going to get there. But the Scoping Plan is completely delusional and deceptive, and does not come remotely close to setting forth a realistic way to get to net zero. It’s just like the delusional JBS promises!
So, Attorney General James, when are you going to bring your case under Executive Law 63(12) against New York State? I think you should demand “disgorgement” back to the taxpayers of all taxes paid at least since 2019, when they started making these fraudulent promises.
Meanwhile, it is high time for the business and legal communities of New York to start calling out our Attorney General for completely politicizing and degrading her office. You corporate CEOs and law firm leaders — do you think that if you just lie low the crocodile will eat you last? Your tolerance of this politicized AG is completely shameful.
The Poisoning
Thou shall…
Lies are Unbekoming | March 10, 2024
Thou shall be poisoned.
My estimate points to 1 in 20 injections going IV accidentally. By that account, 670 million people worldwide would have been harmed, to a degree or another. And studies of accidental IV injections suggest that 127 million people have been harmed clinically.
Thou shall poison others.
There is a saying in military circles: once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action. I have no doubt that given an hour, the people on this panel could point to a hundred examples of the pattern I have just described, while finding even a handful of exceptions would pose a significant challenge.
–
The CDC has become an excellent guide to protecting your health, but only for people who realize you should do the opposite of whatever it advises.
Thou shall disguise The Poisoning.
Popular SSRIs include Fluoxetine (Prozac), Escitalopram (Lexapro), and Sertraline (Zoloft). Something well established about these drugs is that they have sexual side-effects. In fact, between 40 and 65% of people who take an SSRI are thought to experience some form of sexual dysfunction. What few people know, though, is these side effects can persist even after coming off of the drugs—a condition called Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD).
–
There is no treatment. Despite PSSD being in the medical records since the ‘90s, patients are rarely warned of the risk. A risk thought to be 1 in 216.
–
In fact, according to this Stonewall report, more Gen Z Brits identify as asexual (5%) than gay (2%) or lesbian (3%).
Thou shall not tell the truth about The Poisoning.
And it is still happening. We are being surveilled and censored. We are being bullied and browbeat. We are goaded, taxed, nudged, and forced into accepting that which we do not want, whether it is EVs or CBDCs or mRNA. These efforts started with the rejection of science in favor of myth and the myths are still governing the world.
Whatever else we can say about these astonishing developments, this much we can pronounce. We were wrong to trust the authorities. We were wrong to put faith in leaders. We were wrong to look to the universities, the media, and journals, and the experts generally. They failed us. They lied to us.
Thou shall silence those that wish to tell the truth about The Poisoning.
In a world where ‘equity’ is the catch-cry of corporatists accumulating unprecedented wealth, the return of colonialism should not surprise. Colonialism, after all, brings great benefits to those whom it disempowers and pillages. Success requires a highly centralized approach to achieve mass control, restricting freedom ‘for the greater good’ whilst silencing those who disagree.
Thou shall target The Poisoning at The Spirit and Connection.
The introduction of fluoride into the drinking water supply in the 1950s caused perturbations in this social magnetic field (calcifying the pineal gland amongst other harms).
The introduction of mass vaccination campaigns caused further disruptions of the magnetic field thus throwing confusion into the relationships between people.
The widespread use of SSRI’s starting in the early 1990s and the vast deployment of electromagnetic fields for wireless (mobile phone) communication expanded this assault on the social magnetic field.
Over time the field weakened.
In 2019/2020 we got hit with a triple whammy — the release of SARS-CoV-2, the largest propaganda campaign in history, and the rollout of 5G. By this point, most progressives no longer had a working moral compass because the social magnetic field that formerly guided them was gone. They no longer felt a connection with the poor, working class, or the disadvantaged. The subaltern was objectified and viewed as unclean. The working class was turned into delivery drivers so that the laptop class could continue on with their Elysium lifestyle.
–
I argue that this disconnection is what happened to all knowledge production fields as a result of the waves of mass poisonings over the last seventy-five years.
Thou shall recruit and develop The Stupid, as they are the necessary soldiers of The Poisoning.
Stupidity is an obnoxious, frustrating and yet very constant and obtrusive feature of the systems that rule us. I emphasise this quality because I think the accent of much dissident commentary is too much on the malicious, authoritarian and often evil nature of government in the West. Don’t misunderstand me. The powers that be are very bad too, but it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that their collective actions and statements are often just astoundingly dumb. Probably never in the history of humanity has stupidity been so abundant, and so apparently ineradicable, as it is now.
Thou shall make your living by poisoning.
With the world turning full circle, post-World War Two concepts of human rights, equality, and local agency are exiting the international stage. The veiled colonialism currently dressed up as vaccine equity looks like a bunch of colonial bureaucrats forcing their sponsors’ wares on those with less power, whilst building policies to ensure this imbalance remains. Malnutrition, infectious disease, child marriage, and generational poverty are side issues to the East India Pharma and Software Company’s bottom lines. This will stop when those being colonized once again unite and refuse to comply. In the meantime, the enablers could open their eyes and understand who they are working for.
Thou shall poison the poisoned.
Which terrifies me given the surge in SSRI prescriptions among Gen Z. In the UK, 1 in 3 teenagers aged 12 to 18 has been prescribed antidepressants. In 2022 alone, the number of children aged 13 to 19 taking antidepressants rose by 6,000 to 173,000. That’s kids taking drugs known to cause sexual dysfunction—drugs that the Royal College of Psychiatrists admits to using to castrate sex offenders—right during puberty.
–
This seems especially true for girls and young women. In the US, 86% of those identifying as asexual are female, and 91% are aged between 18 to 27. Which is also the demographic with some of the fastest-rising rates in the use of mental health medication. Women and adults aged 18 to 29 in America have the highest rates of current depression or depression treatment. Women are also twice as likely to take antidepressants than men.
Thou shall profit from poisoning the poisoned.
These are all in the top 20 blockbuster drugs in the world.
Then there is Risperdal for autism, Ritalin for ADHD, and Epi pens for severe allergic reactions, and these drugs generate several billion dollars a year in revenue as well.
What most people don’t realize is that these are all treatments for vaccine injuries. The childhood vaccine schedule creates customers for life.
Thou shall receive the wealth of the poisoned.
My specialty is modeling the costs of autism. A study I conducted with Mark Blaxill and Cynthia Nevison showed about $300 billion a year in current costs rising to over a trillion dollars a year in costs by the early 2030s and $5.5 trillion a year by 2060.
The costs of autism will cause the economic and political collapse of the United States in our lifetime.
Thou shall not punish The Poisoning.
As for the producer side, it hasn’t been truly free since 1910. That’s when the so-called Flexner Report came out to push for an allopathic cartel that came to control medical schools, driving up the price of services through a credentialing racket, while blocking alternative forms of care. The wisdom of the ages was toast.
As for pharma, it has not operated in a free market for nearly half a century. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 allowed private companies to keep “intellectual property”—a wholly unnecessary monopoly—and pay patent royalties to government agencies, thus integrating the two sectors in a financial racket.
The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act was also a catastrophe, allowing mass distribution of untested products on people who have no recourse when they go wrong. The PREP Act of 2006 expanded that to all medical countermeasures used in an emergency.
Thou shall punish those that prevent The Poisoning.
On February 14, the French National Assembly passed article 223-1-2 du code pénal. Contained therein, in Article 4 of that law, Robert Kogon writes:
Article 4 introduces a new crime into the French penal code: incitation to abandon or refrain from medical treatment or to adopt a would-be treatment, if, “in the current state of medical knowledge”, doing so “clearly” may cause harm to the person or persons in question. This crime is made punishable by one year in prison and a fine of €30,000 (£26,000) or, if the “incitation” has effect, i.e. the medical advice is followed, three years in prison and a fine of €45,000 (£39,000).
In effect, this is an extreme gag order on physicians, other health care personnel, and indeed anyone who dares speak out against official medical orthodoxy. In terrifyingly broad wording, it criminalizes – with hard time and crippling fines – advising against the received medical wisdom, even if the advice is not followed.
It does not take a doctor, lawyer, or medical ethicist to imagine the effect this will have on medical practice. Put simply, this law will destroy the doctor-patient relationship.
The UK Government Is Considering a New, Looser Definition of “Extremism”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 9, 2024
The authorities in the UK are continuing with attempts to broaden the definition of “extremism” and behavior deemed as “undermining/overturning” British values.
Critics say the whole wiggly thing is the road to authoritarianism.
A new step said to be in that direction is a proposal presented by Communities Secretary Michael Gove, who is reportedly using previous initiatives to usher in a new definition of extremism.
Likely to cover all political and ideological bases, Gove is mentioning both “Islamists” and “far Right” organizations and their harmful activities that slip under the radar as the reason the current understanding of extremism is “too narrow.”
But there doesn’t seem to be consensus on this in the cabinet, with some ministers voicing fears that a lot of groups taking a stance on several issues – such as those opposed to lockdowns, religious organizations that are anti-abortion, gay marriage, trans-gender women in places designated as same-sex, “radical” student groups, etc. – could get caught up in this widened “definition dragnet.”
The problem with that is that these groups are now operating lawfully, according to the Equality Act 2010.
And if the definition is also made enforceable, even political parties, such as the Scottish National Party, could end up on the wrong side of the new rules, reports say.
Right now, extremism in the UK is defined (since 2011) as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
This definition is not statutory, which means it effectively prevents only the government and other administrative bodies from working with or funding such groups.
But Gove wants to “fix” this by making the broader definition statutory.
To achieve this, the current paragraph would get this addition:
“The promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values; or threaten the rights of individuals or create a permissive environment for radicalization, hate crime and terrorism.”
Rather than just “broader,” this reads as straight-up and worrisomely vague.
And when some political representatives, MPs among them, try to wrap their heads around the very concept of “British values,” it becomes clear that the conundrum of defining such things in a way acceptable to everyone becomes mission impossible.
“What does it even mean to undermine British values’ when there is no consensus – and certainly no legal definition – of what those values are?,” MP Miriam Cates summed it up.
CANADA THREATENS LIFE SENTENCES FOR “HATRED”
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | March 7, 2024
Canada’s proposed bill, C-63, lays out liberty-crushing, due process annihilating terms for ill-defined thought crimes such as ‘fear of hate propaganda.’ Meanwhile, Ireland has a similar bill as the public is seeing a hidden hand crafting legislation aimed to disrupt society.
Featured Video
Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Dirty Little Secret behind the “Global Terrorism Index”
The Omission of Israeli Terrorism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
By Karin Brothers | Global Research | December 6, 2014
… The Israeli settlements — all of which are illegal – have been identified as a major impediment to peace. The refusal of a major “global” terrorism report to name the Israeli settlers as one of the groups most responsible for terrorism not only misrepresents a major source of regional violence but exposes the Global Terrorism Index as a propaganda tool that supports a U.S. agenda.
In recent years, governments have been attempting to thwart terrorism by blocking supportive fund-raising. When it comes to Israeli settlements, however, the US and Canada actually encourage fund-raising by giving organizations (such as Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) and the Jewish National Fund) financial support in the form of donor tax-deductions.
Charities which provide funds for the Israeli settlements should be regarded as terror-financing organizations. They should not only lose their tax-deductible status, but they should be banned because they support the violation of international humanitarian law. The terror-financing laws that are being strictly enforced for Muslim charities should be applied to Christian and Jewish charities as well. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Black Cube Files: How Former Mossad Operatives Flipped a Nation
- Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told
- Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief
- Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks
- Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ‘nuclear weapon’ that forced US retreat: Medvedev
- Energy crisis will last for months – Kremlin envoy
- Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran
- Forty days that shook the Empire: How Iran turned the tables on US and prevailed
- Netanyahu unilaterally declares Lebanon outside of ceasefire deal
- Israeli leaders: ‘Not a single goal’ achieved in war with Iran
- If Americans Knew
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- NY Times reports how Netanyahu took the US into Iran War
- A sigh of relief over Iran, but Gaza and Lebanon in dire straits – Daily Update
- Thousands dead and neighborhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
- The war the US is fighting for Israel could cost trillions
- ‘Cigarette Burns, Nail Wounds’: Toddler Tortured in Gaza to Coerce Father
- Trump Says US Sent ‘a Lot of Guns’ to Protesters in Iran
- Israeli forces destroy 17 UN peacekeeper cameras in south Lebanon
- US-Israeli strikes ‘completely destroy’ synagogue in Tehran
- Archbishop for US Military Says Iran War Is Unjust Under Catholic Teaching
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 