Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Universities Threaten To Cut Off Students’ Internet Access If They Fail To Comply With COVID Restrictions

By Steve Watson | Summit News | January 28, 2021

Universities in the US are threatening to completely cut off basic services, including internet access for students if they do not fully comply with all COVID restrictions on campus, according to a report.

Campus Reform notes that several universities are cracking down on students who are not following strict lockdown policies.

The University of Arizona has stated that students will only be able to use the internet if they have tested negative for coronavirus.

The University of Illinois has also threatened to restrict internet access, as well as the tools students need to study and submit assignments.

A January 20th email to students from the Chancellor Robert Jones warned that students who flout the mandates “face university disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal.”

“Please note that this semester, students who are out of compliance may also lose access to university Wi-Fi, Zoom, Compass and other technologies,” the email read.

Boston University also threatened to remove internet access and place blocks on ID cards, which are used for all university services, if students do not get coronavirus tests and report symptoms.

Baylor University in Waco, Texas also announced that internet access will be suspended for the entire semester if three test appointments are missed. If just two appointments are missed then students “will not be allowed to participate in University or student organization activities (All University SING, athletic events, student organization events, campus recreation sports, access to the Student Life Center for recreation, etc.).

Baylor student Charlie Letts told Campus Reform “I find the punishments put in place by Baylor to be a little extreme.”

“The wifi is something students pay for and they need in order to be successful as students,” Letts said.

He continued “I realize that Baylor is trying to enforce the testing protocol, but taking something away that hinders being a productive student maybe isn’t the best option. Especially when everyone has different views about Covid like how compliant to be with social distancing, mask wearing, etc.”

As we have previously reported, colleges are being used as testing grounds for technology to enforce draconian distancing, mask and lockdown measures:

Universities are also threatening to suspend students who dare to leave pre-determined ‘bubble’ areas around campuses, or visit non “approved businesses” without permission.

Other colleges have suggested that students who want to have sex with each other should ‘consider’ wearing face masks while doing so.

It is no longer a stretch to imagine this prison-like model of coercion being implemented in the wider world, indeed it is already being widely touted and in some instances put into place.

Fines for failing to comply with lockdown restrictions. Police given powers to enter your home or place of business to conduct COVID patrols. No internet for you if you fail to take and submit test results. No access to basic services unless you take the vaccine.

January 28, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Ombudswoman Gets Requests to Protect Baltnews, Sputnik Latvia Reporters

Sputnik – 28.01.2021

Russian Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova has received requests from journalists who work with Baltnews and Sputnik Latvia media outlets, asking to protect their rights to freedom of speech, Moskalkova’s office told Sputnik on Thursday, adding that work on the requests is already underway.

“There are such [requests]. We are already working on them”, the office said.

In December, several Russian-speaking journalists working in Latvia, including those who wrote articles for the Baltnews and Sputnik Latvia outlets, have been accused of violating EU sanctions.

Their apartments were searched, with them being put under the condition to not leave the countrySputnik Latvia and Baltnews are part of the Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, whose director-general, Dmitry Kiselev, is on the EU sanctions list.

The Russian Foreign Ministry says that the EU sanctions are individual and concern only Kiselev and thus could not apply to all individuals and entities that work with the agency, especially those who work as freelance journalists. According to Moscow, Latvia uses EU sanctions as an excuse to justify its “punitive campaign” against Russian media.

January 28, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

‘Where is the line between global business & attempts to control society?’ Putin asks Davos, calling out Big Tech

RT | January 27, 2021

Technology giants have become powerful rivals to governments, but there are doubts over the benefits for society of their monopoly positions, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin told the annual World Economic Forum, on Wednesday .

“Where is the line between a successful global business, in-demand services and consolidation of big data – and attempts to harshly and unilaterally govern society, replace legitimate democratic institutions, restrict one’s natural right to decide for themselves how to live, what to choose, what stance to express freely?” Putin wondered.

“We’ve all seen this just now in the US. And everybody understands what I’m talking about,” he added.

The Russian leader was apparently referring to the crackdown by Big Tech corporations like Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon, mostly on Donald Trump and his supporters, during the recent presidential election in the US. The companies, which, according to some critics, sided with Democratic candidate Joe Biden, blocked President Trump’s social media accounts over accusations of inciting violence, with the same being done to many pages of groups and individuals who’d backed him.

However, one-sided bias claim voiced by some might be an overestimation – the accounts of Democrats supporters were also subject to restrictions, but on a much smaller scale.

Conservative Twitter-like platform Parler was also forced offline, and now there are calls to block the Telegram app as well.

These events have shown that Big Tech companies “in some areas have de facto become rivals to the government,” Putin said.

Billions of users spend large parts of their lives on the platforms and, from the point of view of those companies, their monopolistic position is favorable for organizing economic and technological processes, the Russian president explained. “But there’s a question of how such monopolism fits the interest of society,” he stressed.

January 27, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

FBI laments that deplatforming of ‘extremists’ makes it harder to spy on Americans

RT | January 22, 2021

Law enforcement is complaining about social media platforms’ full-frontal assault on American political dissidents’ freedom of speech, crying that removing so-called ‘extremists’ from the internet makes it harder to spy on them.

A former FBI profiler recently took to NBC to complain that while Big Tech restricting Americans’ ability to freely communicate was all well and good, it was making it harder for the US intelligence apparatus to properly snoop on every aspect of these people’s lives.

FBI alum Clint Van Zandt complained that a 70-year-old man involved in the raid on the Capitol earlier this month was totally unknown to the bureau, showing up with a truck full of Molotov cocktails, a rifle, and some “improvised grenades” unheralded by any sort of presence on social media.

Leaving aside the laughable image of the US’ deep-pocketed intelligence apparatus being thwarted by a 70-year-old man from Alabama – who, it’s worth pointing out, is not known to have even entered the Capitol building (!) – FBI agents like Van Zandt and their local counterparts in small-town sheriffs’ offices are really worried that if social media keeps purging Trump supporters and other undesirables, these platforms will create an unstoppable army of Lonnie Coffmans.

Lonnie Coffman, the man in question, had no criminal record or ties to any extremist groups, but “was struggling financially and fixated on right-wing views,” Van Zandt explained, adding – in all seriousness – that the senior citizen was the sort of threat that keeps FBI agents “up at night.”

“The purging of people with radical views from popular social platforms, which has escalated in recent weeks, deprives investigators of a crucial tool in tracking people who might move along the continuum of ideation to action,” the former agent said.

In plain English, the profiler lamented that mass deplatforming prevents FBI agents from both spying on the majority of Americans whom it considers to be potential domestic terrorism threats and entrapping wannabe criminals by posing as terrorists, militia members, and other law-breakers.

Indeed, given that nearly all high-profile FBI cases involve the bureau entrapping suspects, and that this work is increasingly done online, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have become crucial tools in what the FBI describes as its fight against domestic extremism. Ordinary Americans might describe the agency’s work, however, as an unjustifiable effort to lure ordinary people into committing crimes in order to make the FBI and the rest of the US’ sprawling intelligence apparatus seem indispensable.

So please, Twitter and Facebook, the next time you highlight a bunch of users whose views fall outside the ever-more-stifling claustrophobia of the mainstream media and prepare to hit ‘delete’, think of the FBI.

Now that – according to such free-speech-loathing figures as former CIA director John Brennan and House intel committee chair Adam Schiff – the War on Terror is coming home, the FBI is going to need all the help it can get to manufacture the terror statistics that could possibly justify criminalizing political dissent in a nation whose Bill of Rights includes an ironclad guarantee to protect the individual right to free speech. The bureau certainly isn’t going to get that if it hasn’t been cultivating a pool of bored young men with no economic future across multiple platforms, stringing them along with promises of things that go boom.

January 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, False Flag Terrorism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Words are violence. Voting is terrorism. Free speech is a threat. Where the media establishment can’t win, they’ll redefine

By Helen Buyniski | RT | January 19, 2021

Determined to stamp out ‘wrongthink’ in all forms, the media establishment has declared a holy war against free speech. Once the bedrock of US society, it faces a redefinition into something more convenient – or oblivion.

If everyone is permitted to speak freely, their reasoning goes, people’s lives will be put at risk. Those whose opinions diverge from the mainstream should not be permitted to voice those opinions, lest their words hurt people – not just people’s feelings. Yet at the same time as this self-styled Ministry of Truth calls for free speech to be swept into the dustbin of history, it insists its victims’ freedom of speech is not under attack at all.

In the past few weeks, establishment outlets from the New York Times to NBC to the Independent have issued calls for the very idea of “freedom of speech” to be rethought – or better yet, scrapped altogether – because it is no longer in harmony with modern society. This is a tacit admission that the media establishment’s own opinions can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas, and that, despite their best efforts, they can’t censor their way out.

But at the same time as they insist this behavior does not curtail the free speech of the tens of thousands of social media users who’ve been given the boot in the past few months, they’ve called for the very idea of free speech to be retired, as it supposedly has no place in the 21st century.

The establishment’s cries for a bigger, better memory hole don’t stop at praising social media censorship, though there’s plenty of that – Twitter and Facebook’s decision to suspend US President Donald Trump’s accounts has been universally praised by the paper(s) of record. Amazon’s decision to kick the entire social media app Parler off its servers is right up there with storming the beaches of Normandy in the fight against fascism, according to these outlets. They’ve even moved on to demanding cable TV providers push conservative networks such as OANN and Newsmax overboard, and alternative platforms from Telegram to Minds are now in their crosshairs.

The media establishment blames “free speech” for the raid on the Capitol earlier this month, with the Hill skewering social media platforms for putting their dependence on “clicks and ratings” above some sort of higher calling – even though the media establishment’s own dependency on clicks and ratings has forced numerous outlets to merge, downsize, or even close offices as Facebook and Google eat their lunch. Even more absurdly, NBC claimed the FBI would have warned about the raid, except they had concerns about the First Amendment – as if the FBI hasn’t at some point designated almost every American as a domestic terror threat.

The entire argument has the air of something cooked up at the last minute to justify a long-desired end, and sure enough, the media have long been frustrated watching alt-media sites and YouTubers in their bedrooms producing quality content that also – in some cases, at least – has the added value of somewhat resembling the world its audience inhabits. Trying to deplatform the most popular content creators while pretending to uphold the noble mantle of the Fourth Estate has never been an easy balance to strike, and it must come as a relief to many establishment figures to finally dispense with the pretense of embracing freedom of speech.

While not everyone in the media establishment is on board with this new direction, many of those opposed are too scared to speak up, lest they lose their job or be shunned by colleagues. But this sort of cowardly behavior is what has turned the establishment into such a monster. In less than a decade, American liberalism was co-opted by a tiny fraction of screeching malcontents who shouted sanity into hiding with their insistence that “words are violence” and strong opinions they disagreed with were the literal equivalent of curb-stomping oppressed minorities.

Because the ‘silent majority’ (who, contrary to what has become the prevailing doctrine, were not all straight white males) were reluctant to go to war with the unhinged barbarians who’d shown up at their gates, “words [that I don’t like] are violence” became the official doctrine of the academy. Most of those who didn’t like it merely gritted their teeth, held their tongues, and groused in private about the excesses of their cultish colleagues while those colleagues indoctrinated class after class of impressionable young people. Their dogma now dominates the media establishment to the point that journalistic awards are given out not for groundbreaking reporting, but for demonstrations of ideological fealty – and indeed, truth just gets in the way. No wonder much of their audience has fled to YouTube and Twitter for their news.

It’s no longer a question of “if you can’t beat them, join them” – the establishment has issued its verdict, and those whose opinions do not fall within the ever-narrowing borders of the mainstream have been declared anathema. The only problem the narrative managers now face is convincing their targets they don’t have the advantage of numbers. Thus, if you can’t beat them, ban them. What’s the point of having absolute power over the media otherwise? However reality-averse their work may be, these zealots are keenly aware that their captive audience despises being lied to, demonized, and told that the most normal behaviors – from studying the classics to voting to gathering with loved ones in their homes – constitute racism, Nazism, and attempted genocide. There is no way to package such outrageous slanders that will convince those thus degraded to swallow them. So, the only option is to ban arguments from the “other side.”

Failure to triumph in the marketplace of ideas – by the topsy-turvy logic of the Words Are Violence crowd – merely means the marketplace needs stricter regulations. If two plus two cannot be persuaded to equal five, that’s only because math is racist.

In designating freedom of speech – once the foundation of American society – as a threat to democracy, the thought police running the media establishment have essentially completed the job of destroying everything that once made the country successful. The only question remaining is whether Americans are going to take this sort of insult sitting down.

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23

January 20, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Writers, of all people, are now censors

By Jon Rappoport | January 19, 2021

It had to happen.

People who call themselves WRITERS are signing a letter pressuring publishers to ban Trump, and anyone who has worked for him:

Do not publish a Trump memoir. Stay away from him.

The letter was penned by Barry Lyga. Who?

LA Times, January 15 [1]: “More than 250 authors, editors, agents, professors and others in the American literary community signed an open letter this week opposing any publisher that signs book deals with President Donald Trump or members of his administration.”

“Former DC Comics president Paul Levitz, journalist Sarah Weinman and ‘Little Fires Everywhere’ author Celeste Ng are among signatories to the letter, written by novelist Barry Lyga and titled ‘No Book Deals for Traitors’.”

“’We all love book publishing, but we have to be honest — our country is where it is in part because publishing has chased the money and notoriety of some pretty sketchy people, and has granted those same people both the imprimatur of respectability and a lot of money through sweetheart book deals,’ the letter read. ‘We affirm that participation in the administration of Donald Trump must be considered a uniquely mitigating criterion for publishing houses when considering book deals’.”

“’Consequently, we believe: No participant in an administration that caged children, performed involuntary surgeries on captive women, and scoffed at science as millions were infected with a deadly virus should be enriched by the almost rote largesse of a big book deal. And no one who incited, suborned, instigated, or otherwise supported the January 6, 2021 coup attempt should have their philosophies remunerated and disseminated through our beloved publishing houses’.”

Beloved publishing houses? I’m sure no writer, in the last ten thousand years, has ever used that phrase.

Are the author, and the signers of this letter, down on their knees, looking for their own book deals?

Since the invention of language, writers have fought to win the freedom to WRITE without interference. In the process, they’ve been arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered. That’s the history of the war.

And now this little venal band of scum—writers—wants censorship.

Here’s a chapter from that history; Giordano Bruno, 16th century Dominican friar, poet, and philosopher. For teaching a theory of reincarnation, for stating the universe was infinite, for discussing the possibility of life on other planets, on February 17, 1600 in the Campo de’ Fiori Square, “field of flowers,” the Roman Church burned him at the stake.

Yes, this happened. It wasn’t a Netflix movie. It was one stop along the way in the war for freedom.

But all right. These contemporary buffoons want to cancel Trump. Fine. Who’s next?

What about beloved Obama? I have evidence to support retroactive censorship against him. All his books, wherever they can be found, should be assembled in a great pile, in Freedom Plaza, and burned.

His publishers should demand the return of all advances and royalties, and if Obama can’t come up with the cash, a court should empower the publishers to take over his homes and sell them off.

The evidence?

The Guardian, January 9, 2017, “America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama’s reign,” by Medea Benjamin [2]:

“…in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.”

“While most of these air attacks were in Syria and Iraq, US bombs also rained down on people in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. That’s seven majority-Muslim countries.”

“One bombing technique that President Obama championed is drone strikes. As drone-warrior-in-chief, he spread the use of drones outside the declared battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly to Pakistan and Yemen. Obama authorized over 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush, and automatically painted all males of military age in these regions as combatants, making them fair game for remote controlled killing.”

“President Obama has claimed that his overseas military adventures are legal under the 2001 and 2003 authorizations for the use of military force passed by Congress to go after al-Qaida. But today’s wars have little or nothing to do with those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.”

“Given that drones account for only a small portion of the munitions dropped in the past eight years, the numbers of civilians killed by Obama’s bombs could be in the thousands. But we can’t know for sure as the administration, and the mainstream media, has been virtually silent about the civilian toll of the administration’s failed interventions.”

“In May 2013, I interrupted President Obama during his foreign policy address at the National Defense University. I had just returned from visiting the families of innocent people killed by US drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan, including the Rehman children who saw their grandmother blown to bits while in the field picking okra.”

“Speaking out on behalf of grieving families whose losses have never been acknowledged by the US government, I asked President Obama to apologize to them. As I was being dragged out, President Obama said: ‘The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to’.”

“Too bad he never did.”

If you petty little band of censors—who call yourselves writers—want to shut down Trump, then you have to go after Obama.

And then GW Bush, and Clinton, and so on. Don’t stop there.

There are lots of American politicians you can assail, going back to the 17th century.

You’re every censor who ever existed. You think you’ve got a special case in Trump. You don’t have a clue.

You don’t know anything about the history of writers.

I wouldn’t trade three dried-out yak turds for one of your books.

But those books won’t be censored. That’s how generous and consoling freedom is. I could say you should try freedom yourselves, but I know better than that.

I see who you are.

Miniature gargoyles, peddling your virtue-signaling inquisition.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-01-15/book-world-signs-letter-to-block-trump-book-deals

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX.

January 20, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Why Twitter and FB must ban the NY Times

By Jon Rappoport | January 19, 2021

Message to Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey: you have to ban the NY Times. Now.

I’ve got the hard evidence.

The Times, on at least three separate occasions, has published terribly corrosive information that would destroy the official COVID narrative.

Do you realize what that means? People could form a different picture of the pandemic. They could, after reading the Times, decide the situation ISN’T DANGEROUS, AND THE LOCKDOWNS AREN’T NECESSARY. THEY COULD DECIDE ONLY A FOOL WOULD LINE UP FOR THE VACCINE.

I’ll lay it all out for you, dear reader. I’m sure you’ll agree Twitter and FB must take action at once.

ONE: September 22, 2020, the Times : “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know”:

“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?”

“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”

“But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”

“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”

TAKEAWAY from the Times : The vaccine clinical trials are ONLY designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.

Therefore, the leading vaccine clinical trials are useless, irrelevant, misleading, and deceptive.

Therefore, what rational human would choose to receive the COVID vaccine?

TWO: On August 29, 2020, the New York Times published a long article headlined, “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.”

Its main message? “The standard [COVID PCR] tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus…Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”

“In three sets of testing data… compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

“On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.”

TAKEAWAY from the Times : The 90% of people tested, who “carry barely any virus,” are FALSE POSITIVES. Up to 90% of ALL people who have been labeled “COVID cases” are not COVID cases. This fact would downgrade the pandemic to “just another flu season.” And there would be no reason for lockdowns.

THREE: NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests [PCR Tests] Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing… By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

“There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”

“Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

TAKEAWAY frrom the Times : No large study validating the uniformity of PCR results, from lab to lab, has ever been done. At least a dozen very large studies should have checked for uniform results, before unleashing the PCR on the public; but no, this was not the case. It is still not the case.

Now imagine the scandalous information in these three NY Times articles appearing everywhere—on Twitter, FB, Instagram, etc. It would be terrible for Bill Gates, Fauci, and other great leaders in the Holy Church of Biological Mysticism.

Political leaders and public health experts would have, on their hands, a major refutation of their whole narrative about the “deadly pandemic.”

We can’t allow that.

We must protect the public from the Times.

The only way to achieve this is through censorship.

Ban the NY Times from Twitter and Facebook.

Do it now.

If Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg refuse, Attorneys General of all 50 states should sue them at once.

Freeze their personal and corporate bank accounts.

Place them on a special list of “COVID insurrectionists.”

As for the Times, seize their assets, remove them from online platforms, stop the distribution of their newspapers—using military force, if necessary—and cut off all communication from their wire service to other news outlets.

Keeping the public safe is paramount. This is our duty.

CENSORSHIP IS FREEDOM.

MIND CONTROL IS LOVE.

LOCKDOWNS LEAD TO PROSPERITY.

That is all for now.


SOURCES:

[1] nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/covid-vaccine-coronavirus.html

[2] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

[3] nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX.

January 19, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

US-based nonprofit sues Apple to REMOVE Telegram over failure to censor ‘hate speech,’ cites Parler crackdown

RT | January 18, 2021

Coalition for a Safer Web, a non-profit founded by a former US ambassador, has sued Apple, demanding it delete Telegram from its store, arguing that the app is being used to “incite extreme violence” ahead of the inauguration.

The Washington-based nonprofit and its president Marc Ginsberg, who served as US ambassador to Morocco from 1994 to 1998 and was Deputy Senior Adviser to the US President  on Middle East Policy (1978–1981), argue in the newly-filed federal lawsuit that Apple fails to hold Telegram accountable for violating its terms of service.

The complaint, filed on Sunday with the US District Court for Northern California, accuses Telegram of allowing anti-Semites, white supremacists and other extremists to thrive on its platform, with Apple purportedly turning a blind eye on the fact.

The suit posits that if Apple fails to remove the app, it may give rise to street violence, arguing that the app “is currently being used to coordinate and incite extreme violence before the inauguration of President [-elect] Joe Biden.”

“Telegram currently serves as the preferred Neo-Nazi/white nationalist communications channel, fanning anti-Semitic and anti-black incitement during the current wave of protests across America,” the lawsuit argues. It alleges that the privacy-focused messaging app is poised to become an even bigger breeding ground for extremist content as users “migrate to Telegram” after Big Tech’s crackdown on Parler, booted from Apple and Google stores for giving a platform to some of the pro-Trump supporters that stormed the US Capitol.

Ginsberg, who is a co-plaintiff in the suit, notes that in a letter to Apple in July he already asked the tech behemoth to pull Telegram to hold its “financial feet to the fire,” but has received no reply. The former US official, who is Jewish, argues that Apple’s inaction has caused him “emotional distress” through the use of his iPhone. Ginsberg estimated damages he allegedly suffered as a result of Apple’s perceived leniency towards the messaging app at over $75,000.

“By continuing to host Telegram on the Apple App Store, Defendant facilitates religious threats against him and his family that has caused Ambassador Ginsberg to fear for his life,” the complaint charges.

The nonprofit told the Washington Post on Sunday that it plans to mount a similar lawsuit against Google.

Arguing that Apple should banish Telegram from its store without delay, the suit draws on Parler’s case as a precedent, noting that: “Apple has not taken any action against Telegram comparable to the action it has taken against Parler to compel Telegram to improve its content moderation policies.”

Telegram has seen an explosive growth in its user base after established social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube blocked US President Donald Trump and launched a crackdown on his supporters.

The messaging platform, which prides itself for its end-to-end encryption for messages, reported over 500 million monthly users in the first week of January, with CEO Pavel Durov saying that it added 25 million new users in just 72 hours. However, while some portion of the newcomers might have indeed been conservatives fleeing the wide-ranging social media purge, Durov said that almost two in five new clients came from Asia, 27 percent from Europe, and 21 percent from Latin America.

While facing constant criticism for its lax moderation policies, Telegram has recently made headlines for banning“dozens of public channels” for inciting violence.

January 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The Masks Are Coming Off

Orwell

By Rob Slane | The Blogmire | January 9, 2021

I had intended to start the New Year with a heart-warming piece entitled, “2021: The Year of Censorship of Dissent”. It would have been a somewhat prophetical piece, shocking some readers with predictions of a coming crackdown on dissent, and causing others to hoot with laughter because they haven’t quite caught up with the times we are in. You know, the types who say things like “Oh perrrlease! Social Media companies are private companies and they have the right to decide who they allow on their platform” and “Stop making out it’s the gulag” etc.

Unfortunately, my plans were scuppered by the fact that media and social media companies — let’s call them Global Pravda — have come out of the blocks even earlier than even I anticipated, and have been censoring left right and centre. As a result, my intended “prophetical” utterance seems like yesterday’s news.

We’ve had the censoring of Talk Radio on YouTube. Although this was then restored after intervention at the highest level, I understand some of the wonderful conversations between Mike Graham and Peter Hitchens are still banned. YouTube have also banned videos from extremely qualified scientists around the world, including two lengthy interviews given in English by one of the most qualified microbiologists on planet earth, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi.

We’ve then seen the President of the United States being banned from Facebook, Instagram and more recently Twitter. I am no fan of Donald Trump, but it is clear that he has never used these platforms to “incite violence” – the excuse given for his ban –, and it is obvious that there is something else going on there. And we’ve also seen numerous conservatives and scientists who oppose or question the mass quarantining of healthy people literally losing hundreds of Twitter followers in the last few days. Their followers are simply being deleted by Jack’s Magical Dissent Removing Algorithm, which has been invoked with a vengeance.

Last year really was nuts. It was a year when the authorities managed to convince people that even though they have no symptoms of an illness and feel as right as rain, they need to go get tested for the illness they don’t have, using a test that is not fit-for-purpose, such that they come away telling others that they have the illness they don’t actually have. Imagine doing that before 2020:

“Doctor, doctor, I think I have flu.”
“Oh really, what symptoms have you got. A cough? Achiness?”
“Oh no, I feel perfectly well. No symptoms whatsoever.”
“Then what makes you think you’ve got the flu?”
“I just think I might have it. Can I have a test?”

I imagine you’d have been laughed out of the surgery. Yet not only is this what people have been doing for over 9 months, but we’ve been told that people who aren’t ill need to be placed in quarantine and cover their respiratory passages with a piece of cloth, lest they spread the illness they don’t have to others. It’s quite mad, but we can at least comfort ourselves that it will be a source of amusement for our descendants.

It makes me quite nostalgic for the past. Well, 2009 anyway. Back then, when certain folks were trying to ramp up the fear and hysteria over the H1N1 (Swine Flu) outbreak (one Neil Ferguson prophesying 65,000 deaths in Britain), and Mexico announced a shutdown of much of its society for a time, the then Director General of the World Health Organisation, Dr. Margaret Chan, appealed for calm:

“In this regard, let me make a strong plea to countries to refrain from introducing measures that are economically and socially disruptive, yet have no scientific justification and bring no clear public health benefit. Rational responses are always best. They are all the more important at a time of economic downturn.”

Yet despite 2020 craziness, it doesn’t seem like it will hold a candle to 2021. If the first week or so is any barometer, it may be that 2020 was just the trailer or the warm-up act for the real thing. We’ve already seen the Chief Medical Adviser telling people who don’t have an illness to act as if they do have an illness. We’ve already seen the rollout of a vaccine, the study for which is not due to be completed until on 27th January 2023. And we’ve already seen international organisations telling us that restrictions are likely to continue for the foreseeable future, Salvation by Vaccine notwithstanding – although those of us who have followed things carefully knew this anyway.

Yet the real story of 2021 — if anyone is allowed to tell it — is likely to be mass censorship. What we are already seeing is, ironically, an unmasking. If 2020 was the year in which people put their Masks on, 2021 is already shaping up to be the year when the Globalists and Global Pravda really take theirs off. They are really going for it, blatantly censoring dissent, brazenly de-platforming alternative views, and shamelessly using technology to ensure that reasoned, fact-based challenges to establishment narratives are silenced.

It is ugly, its sinister and its menacing. And unless you are someone who longs to live in a more totalitarian state, you need to get wise to it now, you need to pray against it now, and you need to fight against it now. The masks are coming off and freedom is being crushed. Choose which side you want to stand on.

January 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Facebook Censors Mexican Cardinal for Denouncing ‘New World Order’

By Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. | BREITBART | January 16, 2021

Facebook has censored a video of Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara, for suggesting that globalist leaders are exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to bring about a new world order.

In place of the cardinal’s weekly video, Facebook exhibited a greyed-out screenshot emblazoned with the banner “False information.” Underneath, Facebook added, “This publication repeats information about COVID-19 that independent fact checkers deemed false.”

On its Facebook pageSemanario Arquidiocesano Guadalajara, an information service run by the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, posted the following screenshot on January 13, along with the text “Cardinal Juan Sandoval denounced the imposition of a new world order, hours later his video was censored”:

In the nine-and-a-half-minute January 12 video, bearing the title “Plot of a new world order,” the cardinal begins by saying, “Dear friends, this will go on for a long time.”

“This pandemic won’t end in a month or two months, perhaps not this year, perhaps not in three, four, five, six years,” he said. “That’s what these men want. It will be a long haul.”

“It’s a tough, difficult situation, the likes of which has not been seen in human history,” he said:

“Bill Gates is a prophet and foretells the future,” the cardinal noted wryly, “and not only did he predict the coming of the coronavirus, but has also warned of a possible future smallpox pandemic.”

During the pandemic, Cardinal Sandoval has criticized the shuttering of businesses and services as disproportionate measures to curb the spread of the virus.

“What they’re after is a world government, a new world order,” the cardinal asserts in the video.

“They want a single world government, a single army, a single currency, a single economy, and also a single religion — that will certainly not be the Christian religion,” he said. “It will be the religion of Mother Earth, in the name of humanity and universal brotherhood.”

“To this end, pandemics serve to weaken nations; they impoverish and indebt them, bringing down their economies,” Sandoval said. “They also weaken education, closing schools and replacing them with distance learning.”

“These pandemics also impede religious practice, as we saw all last year,” he said. “They close the churches, reduce the number of people who can worship.”

“But above all, they are creating fear, a terrible fear among the people,” he warned.

January 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

MSM calls for “new definition of free speech”

New buzzwords in the mainstream media bubble spell trouble for those outside it

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | January 16, 2021

Part of the main duty of OffGuardian is to troll through the masses of media output and try and pick up patterns. Sometimes the patterns are subtle, a gentle urging behind the paragraphs. Sometimes they’re more like a sledgehammer to the face.

This has been face-hammer week. In fact, it’s been a face-hammer year.

From “flatten the curve” to “the new normal” to “the great reset”, it’s not been hard to spot the messaging going on since the start of the “pandemic”. And that distinct lack of disguise has carried over into other topics, too.

We pointed out, a few days ago, the sudden over-use of the phrase “domestic terrorism” preparing us for what is, almost certainly, going to be a truly horrendous piece of new legislation once Biden is in office.

Well, the buzz-phrase doing the rounds in the wake of Donald Trump being banned from the internet is “the new definition of free speech”… and variations on that theme.

Firstly, and papers on both sides of the Atlantic want to be very clear about this, Donald Trump being banned simultaneously from every major social network is not in any way inhibiting his free speech.

Indeed none of the tens of thousands of people banned from twitter et al. have had their free speech infringed either. Neither have any of the proprietors – or users – of the Parler app which the tech giants bullied out of existence.

Free Speech is totally intact no matter how many people are banned or deplatformed, the media all agree on that (even the allegedly pro-free speech think tanks).

They also agree that maybe… it shouldn’t be. Maybe “free speech” is too dangerous in our modern era, and needs a “new definition”.

That’s what Ian Dunt writing in Politics.co.uk thinks, anyway, arguing it’s time to have a “grown-up debate” about free speech.

The Financial Times agrees, asking about the “limits of free-speech in the internet era”.

Thomas Edsall, in the New York Times, wonders aloud if Trump’s “lies” have made free speech a “threat to democracy”.

The Conversation, a UK-based journal often at the cutting edge of the truly terrifying ideas, has three different articles about redefining or limiting free speech, all published within 4 days of each other.

There’s Free speech is not guaranteed if it harms others, a drab piece of dishonest apologia which argues Trump wasn’t silenced, because he could make a speech which the media would cover… without also mentioning that the media has, en masse, literally refused to broadcast several of Trump’s speeches in the last couple of months.

The conclusion could have been written by an algorithm analysing The Guardian’s twitter feed:

the suggestion Trump has been censored is simply wrong. It misleads the public into believing all “free speech” claims have equal merit. They do not. We must work to ensure harmful speech is regulated in order to ensure broad participation in the public discourse that is essential to our lives — and to our democracy.

Then there’s Free speech in America: is the US approach fit for purpose in the age of social media?, a virtual carbon copy of the first, which states:

The attack on the Capitol exposed, in stark terms, the dangers of disinformation in the digital age. It provides an opportunity to reflect on the extent to which certain elements of America’s free speech tradition may no longer be fit for purpose.

And finally, my personal favourite, Why ‘free speech’ needs a new definition in the age of the internet and Trump tweets in which author Peter Ives warns of the “weaponising of free speech” and concludes:

Trump’s angry mob was not just incited by his single speech on Jan. 6, but had been fomenting for a long time online. The faith in reason held by Mill and Kant was premised on the printing press; free speech should be re-examined in the context of the internet and social media.

Ives clearly thinks he’s enlightened and liberal and educated, after all he drops references to Kant AND Mills (that’s right TWO famous philosophers), but he’s really not. He’s just an elitist arguing working class people are too dumb to be allowed to speak, or even hear ideas that might get them all riled-up and distract them from their menial labour.

To season these stale ideas with a sprinkling of fear-porn, NBC News is reporting that the FBI didn’t report their “concerns” over possible violence at the Capitol, because they were worried about free speech. (See, if the FBI hadn’t been protecting people’s free speech, that riot may not have happened!)

And on top of all of that, there’s the emotional manipulation angle, where authors pretend to be sad or exasperated or any of the emotions they used to have.

In the Irish Independent, Emma Kelly says that “free speech” doesn’t include “hate speech” (she’s never exactly clear what part of “go home in peace love” was hate speech though).

In The Hill, Joe Ferullo is almost in tears that the first amendment has been ruined by the right-wing press continuously “shouting fire in a crowded theatre”, citing the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes quote, which so many use to “qualify” the idea of free speech, without realising it hands over power to destroy it completely.

Up until you can show me the hard-and-fast legal definitions of “shout”, “fire”, “crowded” and “theatre”, this open-ended qualification is nothing but a blank canvas, free to be interpreted as loosely – or stringently – as any lawmaker or judiciary feels is necessary.

As an example:

Twitter is certainly bigger and more populated than a theatre, and spreading anti-vaccination/anti-war/pro-Russia/”Covid denial” news [delete as appropriate] is certainly going to cause more panic than one single building being on fire. Isn’t it?

It’s this potential abuse of incredibly loose terminologies which will be used to “redefine” free speech.

“Offensive”, “misinformation”, “hate speech” and others will be repeated. A lot.

Expressions which have no solid definition under law, and are already being shown to mean nothing to the media talking heads who repeat them ad nauseum.

If “go home in peace and love”, can become “inciting violence”, absolutely everything can be made to mean absolutely anything.

The more they “redefine” words, the further we move into an Orwellian world where all meaning is entirely lost.

And what would our newly defined “free speech” really mean in such a world?

January 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s been deleted from internet, and any one of us could be next

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | January 14, 2021

Donald Trump has been deleted from the internet. He hasn’t been put behind a warning or had his followers reduced, or been forced to switch platforms. He’s gone.
Snapchat. Twitter. Facebook. YouTube. Google. Amazon. Instagram. Shopify. Twitch. Tiktok. Gone.

And he’s the President of the United States. If they can do it to him, they can do it to anyone.

Indeed, that’s the message being sent. It’s an intimidation move, designed to frighten people into policing themselves.

Many people have picked up on this already.

But unfortunately, many more are still lost in what they falsely believe to be the heady scent of victory. They’ll realise their mistake eventually, but it may be too late for us all by then.

It didn’t even stop at Trump, either. Tens of thousands of other people were banned in the following days.

For years the refrain from people defending censorship on social media – ironically, people who would usually identify as “socialists” – has been that private companies have the right to police their platforms as they see fit, and if you don’t like it you can switch to another social network.

… but now those other social networks are being shut down too.

It started with Gab a few years ago, but the recent assault on Parler was even stronger. Gab survived, Parler has not. The tech giants got together and stamped the life out of a smaller competitor. (Pretty sure antitrust laws are there to prevent exactly that scenario, but nevermind.)

The whole week since the “Capitol Hill Riot” has been one long display of dominance. A peacock fanning its tail or a silverback banging on tree trunks.

They are telling us who’s in charge, but some people are refusing to listen.

A common meme doing the rounds among “liberal” voices – who are these days well-schooled in missing the point – goes something like this: “If he’s too dangerous to have a twitter account, why does he have the nuclear codes?”

But, of course, the real question is – if they don’t even let him have a Twitter account, do you honestly think they let him anywhere near the nuclear codes?

Do you really think he has, or had, any power at all? Do you think Joe Biden does?

Do you think the same architecture that just publically castrated the “most powerful man on Earth” and the “leader of the free world” will suddenly start doing what it’s told when a “progressive” voice is in charge?

If they don’t bow to the will of the people now, why should they ever?

They won’t. They never have.

We’ve been told, in very clear terms, who has the power. And it is certainly not us, nor is it our elected representatives.

In fact, it’s not anyone with either democratic mandate or legal accountability, but rather a series of nameless executives, faceless bureaucrats and a succession of tech-billionaires forming a new breed of royalty.

Deleting Donald Trump wasn’t just a “panic response” to the “violence” on Capitol Hill, and it wasn’t a punishment for the man himself – It was a calculated display of honesty. A declaration of intent.

A notification of the limitations we’re all going to face as the increasingly dystopian new normal shapes a different kind of society.

It’s all been clearly co-ordinated. The Deep State and big business and the media working together. Police are instructed to create unrest on Capitol Hill, allow “rioters” into the building. The media report it as an “attempted coup”, while the social networks remove all of Trump’s denunciations so he can be blamed for “inciting violence”.

They created the lie. They spread the lie. They silenced anyone who would gainsay the lie. They have, as Karl Rove would put it, “created reality”, and now we’re here analysing it.

It was a big lie, this time, because it had to be. Because the man – or rather the office – was big. But for Joe Bloggs it can be a small lie. “he posted child porn” or “he was spreading hate” or “he was denying the pandemic”.

The precedent has been created. They can ban anyone they want and make up the reasons later.

Frank Zappa famously said:

The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.

Well, we’ve been shown the wall, and we’re being encouraged to cheer because the first person to run into it was Donald Trump. Rather predictably, millions have fallen for it.

January 14, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment