The Rockefellers created 990 “Climate Change” institutions, foundations, and activist groups
Every time you hear a “climate change” scare story, that person was PAID. He is a Rockefeller stooge. He may not know it; but his profession has been entirely corrupted
This is the most public of their estates but Rockefeller houses, mansions, lodges, city palaces, beachfront estates, and dozens upon dozens of holiday houses litter America.
By Elizabeth Nickson | Welcome to Absurdistan | July 7, 2024
In the climate change arena, the Rockefellers call the shots. The whole thing was their idea, they took a silly but interesting theory and amped it up with hundreds and hundreds of million of dollars. They founded institutions and linked the survival of those institutions to promoting climate change and population reduction. They adopted one likely politician after another.
The Rockefellers have created 990 Climate Change activist organizations. They give them directions, financing, and launch them on the world. The Green Movement was started, financed, organized, and militarized by the Rockefellers. By the late 40’s the family was all in, on the same page. In the 50’s they began to stand up countless institutions, committees, university departments, university institutes, foundations, and policy shops gathered around this one idea, as below:
Let’s just pause here and recognize that the United States and Canada are 5% developed. If it were 50%, then maybe we would have reason to worry about the effects of trace gas that takes up .04% of the atmosphere, of which 3% is currently contributed to by humans. But were we to have that level of development, our science would have long ago solved the problem. Our sense of proportion, size and consequence has been twisted, propagandized via hundreds of billions of purposed dollars. And all of it is exaggerated science done by scientists compromised by Rockefeller money.
By 1998, the Rockefeller family had swept the table clean of any opposition to this one idea. Any scientist not on board with the agenda was imperiled. Any university department not working towards this one artificial goal, was in danger of being marginalized. Infiltration had begun into every media organization, every entertainment division of every major corporation. This, as stated below, would be a generational goal. For everyone. Or get off the bus.
The Rockefellers have created 990 Climate Change institutions, foundations, and activist groups. And they fund them.
What is evidentiary, what can be proved in a court of law, rather than opinion, however, is that the Fabians started the idea of this whole one-world, no nation state. It is clear too that after the First World War, the Fabians roped in the second generation of Rockefellers. It was a major catch. It meant they had America. And it was spiritual. It was meant to change mankind, to kill off Homo Sapiens and turn us to Homo Universalis.
The New Man would be not-Christian, quietist, and self-obsessed. The economy would trend towards zero-growth if not de-growth. There is a preponderance of data, many many publications that laid out their plans. They twisted education away from practical science, engineering and building things towards social movements, the humanities, the arts, and pleasure. And via Laurance Rockefeller’s money and organizational skill, they devised and invented the discipline of cybernetics from which the internet flows.
The first Rockefeller, as almost everyone knows, was John D., by all accounts a deeply unpleasant individual who, after his private army killed protestors, was advised to go into charity in a big way to rescue his reputation. Which he did, and managed to dodge the trustbusters and Teddy Roosevelt, and build his empire over the corpses of his competitors. And then, as advised, he began to buy the media. The Luce empire of Time-Life fell into step. From the 60’s on Time-Life stood astride the media world, attracting the best, the authority on every subject. I was trained there, and trained well, but all the writing was done back in New York, in the Time Life building in Rockefeller Center. It was massaged to fit the message. I wanted to write and left.
By the second generation, the family had found its purpose, the meaning for all the wealth, the path forward. John D., according to Sir Stephen Wilkinson, who has studied him all his life, believed to his core that God had favored him with so much wealth because he was good; his Baptist faith coupled with titanic wealth made him a modern priest. His family, his heirs, would be a Royal Priesthood leading mankind to a new paradise. How the family must have fallen upon the Fabians, with their starry titled members, Bertrand Russell, all the Huxleys, H.G. Wells, Emmeline Pankhurst. How seductive socialism is to the intellectual class. It gives them the right, being so smart, to order humanity. To choose for the rest of us. Few of them could run a corner store.
The seduction of great wealth is pretty much irresistible. Everyone falls. The last time I was “in society” was at a wedding hosted by the Bostonian Cabots – so ancient they arrived in the New World in 1498. Famously, “The Lodges only talk to the Cabots and the Cabots only talk to God.” That’s how grand they are. Their wealth spread out that weekend was like entering heaven, everything so beautiful, so absolutely perfect in every detail. It was a lush sinking feeling, utterly seductive to the ego. Any Clinton, Gore, Obama, Kerry, Bush, any impoverished scientist, any ambitious university administrator, every fundraiser, every marginalized military man, would just fall over like an ambitious 20 year old faced with her first billionaire. Take me I’m yours.
The Cabots in full regalia
And that’s what happened. That’s how they did it, by inviting likely servants to their houses and hunting lodges, donating buildings, buying the land for the U.N., funding organizations, appealing to vanity and greed and above all, the human’s desperate need for significance. They created a super-class unmoored to reality and entirely 100% destructive of human life. It was systematic, a fierce, unstoppable, detailed two-hundred-year plan. Each generation would make their contribution.
It started with the felt need to reduce population and turn man into something other. To stress, environmentalism, neo-Malthusianism; the ‘saving of the planet’ was the motivator for each of the following actions. If you accepted Rockefeller funding, you toed the line. There were too many people, the carrying capacity of the earth was breeched, the planet was dying, we need a new form of human. These ideas all came out of the Fabian stable and metastasized through the culture like the most delicious poison. Every intellectual, all the universities started to promote this idea. It was heady, exciting. It celebrated Man, not some faceless distant Deity. Fabians hated Christianity and wanted, above everything, to replace it. But first, they had to command every institution of civil society.
The following is a partial list of the institutions by which the Rockefeller family built the modern world, in every aspect of the culture. It was masterful. Ancient Kings and Emperors would have marveled.
In 1920, John D. co-founded the League of Nations. He was the major donor. It failed because the U.S. refused to sign on. The family began to run for office, in order to manipulate levers of power behind the scenes. Today, there is pretty much always a Rockefeller in power at each level of government.
In 1921, they founded the Council of Foreign Relations, (CFR). David built and donated CFRs headquarters. CFR is closely allied to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London, Chatham House, itself closely allied with the British Round Table and the Fabians. When people talk about the 13 Families theory, the Round Table and RIIA feature big-time.
In 1944, they co-founded the World Bank, its ideals and purpose devised by the Council of Foreign Relations’ War and Peace Studies Committee.
In 1945, they co-founded the United Nations, with the CFR and RIIA. David Rockefeller wrote the preamble to the U.N. Charter. John D. Jr bought the 17 acres for the U.N building. Nelson chose the architect, Philip Johnson, thereby introducing the International Style. The family funded the U.N. building.
In 1948, came their statement of purpose:
If the world government cause is to triumph it will need more than sympathetic endorsement by the majority. People must be made to feel that their own security, freedom, and prosperity, yes, their own survival, depend on the creation in our time, of a world rule of law. They must be made to believe that the establishment of a World Government is more urgent than the maintenance of a high domestic standard and as, if not more, practical than the pursuity of a deceptive security by full military preparedness. – Atomic physicist, Edwin Rabinowitch, a Rockefeller client/servant, 1948
In 1948, in league with Julian Huxley, Mr. Population, a leading member of the British Eugenics Society and the British Humanist Society, they formed the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, (IUCN). Stated goal: better distribution of the world’s population (which is behind the migrant crisis) and fertility control. The IUCN has systematically cleared tens of millions of traditional and indigenous peoples from their lands in Africa and the East.
In 1948, they founded the Conservation Foundation. In 1953, they funded it with $53 million, the equivalent of $650 million today.
In 1954, they founded, with Bernhard of the Netherlands (thought to be the apex child predator) the Bilderberg group.
In 1955, they cofounded the International Meterological Institute (IMI)
In 1959, the first publication of the Rockefeller Institute Press included a section on “Changes in the Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere and Sea due to Fossil Fuel Combustion”.
Laurance Rockefeller was purposed with the spiritual arm of the operation. Starting in the late 40’s. Laurance founded fifty environmental organizations including the World Wildlife Federation, the World Resource Foundation, the IUCN, and UNESCO. Laurence is behind Esalen and Lindesfarne Association, and is responsible for coining the term “New Age”. He founded and funded the Fund for the Advancement of the Human Spirit, the Foundation for Conscious Evolution, the Conservation Foundation. He was a board member of the National Resources Defense Council, the National Geographic Society, Woods Hole Geographic Society, Resources for the Future, and the Sloan foundation. He was a board member of the Environmental Defence Fund and the WWF. He co-founded the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and served as its chairman from 1958-1979. Laurance Rockefeller founded Cybernetics as a discipline by funding its study.
This man created the New Age, the climate scare and the Sixth Great Extinction scare
He stood up and funded most of the New Age gurus followed today by tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. The New Age says “Stay out of the battleground, don’t worry about your neighbor, your family, your town, your country. Worry about your personal spiritual advancement, your tolerance and forgiveness. Work on yourself. Do your “shadow work”, you are everything, everything is a reflection of you.”
He funded the Disclosure Movement, which claims that aliens walk among us, and that their technology, liberated from the Naval Research Labs (another Rockefeller genesis) will save humanity. He was a ferocious, destructive nut.
Next, the family founded, financed and organized the European Commission, OPEC, and the UN Development Program.
In 1973, they founded the Trilateral Commission.
The plans for Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study had been drawn up by Tom Jones from the British Round Table, intended as an American version of All Souls at Oxford which is primarily an academic research institution with particular strengths in the humanities and social and theoretical sciences. The Rockefellers were closely involved via funding the Institute and funding all of its heads and especially, significant scientists, providing grants for their work.
Here the science of climate forecasting was developed using climate modelling during the 1950’s Initially it was thought that geo-engineering would be the principal method used, rather than reducing emissions. They were math freaks, one of whom made the following convenient prophecy.
The climate scare well entrained, the family turned their attention to art and architecture. The breaking of architectural tradition was deliberate. Modern architecture, the International Style was created in order to disrupt and make uneasy Homo Sapiens.
”The International Style suited the Rockefeller brothers’ internationalist aspirations like a glove. It also inspired radically new zoning laws and urban planning models, leading not only to a boxy skyline of rectangular high-rise slivers, but to extensive sprawl and automobile dependency— which also happened to be highly profitable for the oil and auto industries.” (Nordangard)
In New York alone, they commissioned the following buildings, all built to be intentionally unsettling, deliberately destructive. Modernism deliberately erased the the past. It was purposed to make the human walking by and through these buildings, a sense of himself as base, insignificant, submissive and subject.
Some of the Rockefeller-financed buildings:
Rockefeller University
The U.N. Headquarters
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Riverside Church
The Cloisters
Lincoln Center of the Performing Arts
Empire State Plaza in Albany
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
The World Trade Center
Kissinger, then a professor at Harvard, was one of the family’s most treasured assets. He believed “a new political architecture would be required, better able to offer long-term governance.” He became part of Nelson’s “portable brains trust”, the Rockefeller Brother’s fund, the Special Studies Project. The SSP worked from 1956-1961 to build that new political architecture:
They co-founded Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
They co-founded the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
They co-founded the Atomic Energy Commission, the Office of Naval Research, and the National Science Foundation while Nelson Rockefeller was in power.
This is only a partial list. Every single one of these institutions are neo-Malthusian, bent on fewer humans, and taking us off the land into giant pens, controlled, measured and monetized.
In 1989, illustrating the family’s reach abroad, the Hague Declaration (with 24 signatories) called for a new international institutional authority that could preserve the Earth’s atmosphere and fight global warming.
Thereafter, in that same year, 1989, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund under the leadership of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger founded the United Nations Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). and funded it with near unlimited resources going forward.
In the appendices of Norgangard’s book, he lists all the institutions founded by the family. Skimming them, I found myself jumping out of my desk chair and shouting into the void. The dog vanished, the cat hid. It is infuriating – they used their power to corrupt every institution that would serve their end game. Here is one page.
The End Game
In 2012, the U.N. Climate Fund announced the establishment of the model for the cities of the future, outside Seoul, Korea called Songdo. Songdo is failing. No one wants to live there. Those who visit describe the place as soulless, with no people, no vivid life. Billions were spent creating it.
Nordangard describes:
“Traffic flow and citizen behaviour is monitored in real-time via five hundred surveillance cameras. Household waste is automatically transported via the pneumatic system under the city and converted into energy. All apartments have smart locks, with smart cards which can also be used for loaner bikes, parking, subway, and movie tickets. All apartments have smart meters (enabling residents to compare their energy consumption with that of their neighbors) and built-in cameras everywhere. Floor sensors detect pressure changes and automatically alert an alarm service of a suspected fall. Systems are tested where residents via the TV screen can receive language lessons or communicate with their physician as well as neighbors and relatives, and bracelets for locating children via GPS.7 In other words, a futuristic dream straight out of the World Future Society’s 1970s vision—or Orwell’s 1984. And this is South Korea. How successful, environmentally friendly, and inclusive Songdo really turned out to be has been questioned. It was built primarily for an affluent middle class expected to be able to afford the higher standard and the new technology. The electricity comes from coal-fired power plants and the buildings are completely glazed with windows that cannot be opened, which requires air conditioning all year round.8 Also, the pneumatic waste disposal system does not always work properly. As of March 2018 there was still no cultural life, no street vendors or old people, public transport, transport systems were empty and three-quarters of the homes were empty.
Evil has a human face, but despite the billions thrown at the people of the earth, fewer and fewer of us are falling for it. This latest Facebook-hysteria-the-sky-is-falling post from NASA’s Climate Change Center, received 5,600 reactions. 5,300, including mine were laughing emojis. And the top comment cited Torecelli, with one man’s work refuting every single flatulent government propaganda machine theory. Facebook, remember, is controlled speech and still, the people win.
Elizabeth Nickson was trained as a reporter at the London bureau of Time Magazine. She became European Bureau Chief of LIFE magazine in its last years of monthly publication, and during that time, acquired the rights to Nelson Mandela’s memoir before he was released from Robben Island. She went on to write for Harper’s Magazine, the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times Magazine, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and the National Post. Her first book The Monkey Puzzle Tree was an investigation of the CIA MKULTRA mind control program and was published by Bloomsbury and Knopf Canada. Her next book, Eco-Fascists, How Radical Environmentalists Are Destroying Our Natural Heritage, was a look at how environmentalism, badly practiced, is destroying the rural economy and rural culture in the U.S. and all over the world. It was published by Adam Bellow at Harper Collins US. She is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Center for Public Policy, fcpp.org. You can read in depth policy papers about various elements of the environmental junta here: https://independent.academia.edu/ElizabethNickson
You can buy Jacob Nordangard’s book here
AND JUST LIKE THAT, THE CLAIM VACCINES ARE THE WORLD’S BEST STUDIED PRODUCT DIES
The world’s leading vaccinologist, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, and company have just capitulated…
Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | July 10, 2024
Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.
They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied—neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.”
That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled at what they are clearly up to:
For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.”
For decades, parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.
In 2018, I had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination program and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/the-deposition-of-stanley-plotkin/.
After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC exclude harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See https://icandecide.org/article/dr-stanley-plotkin-the-godfather-of-vaccines-reaction-to-being-questioned/.
The problem is, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, at bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundations, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.
That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realize they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth. So, their only option is to try and co-opt the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist. But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.
Thus, in their article just published, they pretend they never lied about vaccine safety. They pretend they are now just pointing out vaccine safety has never really been conducted, as if that was not known to them before.
Don’t be fooled. Their real agenda is plain, and it is not to study vaccine safety, but rather to confirm that which they already believe. This is crystal clear from the fact that, while their article admits the studies have not been done, they write in the same breath that serious vaccine harms are “rare.” But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don’t, and they don’t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshipping and that have brought them fame and riches.
They also ignore the mountain of studies and data which already exist that clearly show serious vaccine harms. Just take a moment to review the large body of science around one of the adjuvants used in vaccines which multiple studies show can cause serious harm. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38788092/.
Finally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are “rare,” ignoring all the existing studies showing harm, these folk have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund to presumably pay themselves and their compatriots hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct the studies that would, no doubt, seek to confirm their prior conclusion that vaccine harms are “rare,” while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm.
So, with that in mind, and sorry for the long wind-up, here are the things they admit in this article for maybe the very first time:
“[T]he widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the Covid-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorized for use.”
Comment: The parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and others were never “satisfied” with seeking to assess “risks after a vaccine has been authorized.”
“Postauthorization studies are needed to fully characterize the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow up durations, and population heterogeneity.”
Comment: Let me translate: the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value, just see www.icandecide.org/no-placebo; amazingly, I just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth https://x.com/AaronSiriSG/status/1673483027618623489.
“It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”
Comment: No shit and you have been claiming for decades this was being done!
“When they are caused by vaccines (vaccine adverse reactions), the risk attributable to vaccination and the biologic mechanism must be ascertained. That science becomes the basis for developing safer vaccines, if possible, and for determining contraindications to vaccination and the compensation that should be offered for AEFIs.”
Comment: Again, no shit, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!
“Currently in the United States, when the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends a new routine vaccine, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccine procurement by Vaccines for Children (VFC) and for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.”
Comment: Again, no shit! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting.
“Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow — often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete — which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.”
Comment: More gaslighting because had a proper clinical trial been conducted pre-licensure, we would know the safety before it is unleashed on babies and we wouldn’t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorization “epidemiological” studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid “public concern and consequent decreases in immunization coverage,” not because you actually care about safety.
“In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored, illustrating the need for more rigorous science.”
Comment: Again, no shit, and I would appreciate if you would please properly cite to the ICAN white paper from 2017 from which you have plainly lifted this point https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017-1.pdf.
“Identifying the biologic mechanisms of adverse reactions — how and in whom they occur — is critical for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding contraindications, and equitably compensating vaccinees for true adverse reactions.”
Comment: Shameless to pretend you have not for decades ignored or attacked those calling for these studies while pretending a mountain of such studies showing the foregoing don’t already exist.
“[T]he budget for vaccine-safety monitoring at the CDC (which is responsible for the majority of U.S. federal efforts) has remained stagnant … at about $20 million per year” which they write is an “inadequate level of funding.”
Comment: Again, shameless to pretend parent groups have not been yelling about this issue for decades only to be ignored and attacked.
“The public [now] also wants public health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse events – which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people.”
Comment: They have always been given to millions or billions of people, and the studies showing the harms they cause are not rare and they already exist, but you don’t really care about that reality as vaccine safety is not really the goal.
If they are really interested in the truth about what injuries vaccines cause and the rate at which these injuries occur, then they should welcome convening a bipartisan panel which could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exists on this topic (often by scientists not on pharma’s dole) and we could design additional studies together and have them run in the open so everybody has to live with the result.
(Among other reasons to demand the study be conducted in the open is that I have witnessed firsthand what happens when a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in large multi-million person datasets, using historical insurance data, showed vaccinated children had multiple times the rate of numerous chronic diseases – the study gets buried hence the need to do it in the open.)
Plotkin and company should welcome studies which can show vaccines have not contributed to the rise in chronic childhood disease (many of which are immune mediated diseases) from 12% of children in the early 1980s (when CDC recommended 7 routine childhood injections) to over 50% of children now (when CDC recommends over 90 routine childhood injections).
And I think they do welcome such studies if they can assure that the outcome would show vaccines do not cause these harms. Alas, the reality is that (as they know) studies showing vaccines contribute to this rise already exist. But their goal, in any event, is not to really study safety. Rather it is to prove their prior assumption that vaccines are safe and harms are “rare.” This approach is how they designed VAERS, V-SAFE, VSD, and every other “safety” system.
As is transparent from their article, the only reason they even pretend to care about vaccine safety is that they want to avoid reduction in vaccine uptake – not actually assure safety.
That all said, if they are really well-meaning, I would welcome collaborating. To be fair, I will email all four of them to request a meeting to review existing science and design studies mutually agreed upon. If they are really interested in vaccine safety, they should welcome that (I have no hard feelings despite their attacks on me and I hope they can rise above any hard feelings they have for the sake of protecting children). Most importantly, I’m willing to live with the results of those studies. Are they?
Australians in shock over former President of AMA Prof. Kerryn Phelps’ leaked audio on vaccine injuries
PharmaFiles by Aussie17 | July 9, 2024
Australians have been left in a state of shock after more leaked audio emerged from the censored 7News segment “After COVID,” which I wrote about here and here. This time, we have the full, alarming statements by former President of the Australian Medical Association, the largest professional body for doctors in Australia, Professor Kerryn Phelps, in response to host Michael Usher when he asked, “Is there anything to learn from people who’ve had side effects that both of you are describing in detail?”
In the recording, Phelps exposes the disturbing rise in mRNA vaccine side effects and the gross negligence by both the government and pharmaceutical companies in addressing these issues.
“I mean I’ve never seen so many young people having cardiac MRIs in my entire career. There are people who’ve had heart damage, myocarditis, they’ve had heart problems, gastrointestinal problems, dysautonomia.” – Professor Kerryn Phelps
The conversation, hosted by Michael Usher on “Spotlight,” is now available on YouTube. The official version, unfortunately, removed many “controversial” remarks that 7News doesn’t want the public to hear, exposing the shocking incompetence and indifference displayed by the authorities. This blatant censorship is nothing short of an insult to the public’s right to know the truth.
According to Phelps, this dismissive attitude points to an acute lack of medical curiosity and engagement when investigating adverse reactions. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) takes in reports—estimated at 144,000 adverse reactions and 22,000 serious adverse reactions(deaths, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations, miscarriages, and other life-threatening conditions.) — but this figure significantly underrepresents the actual problem, as Phelps said it is only “a drop in the ocean”.
Just to emphasize again, based on the population of Australia, which is approximately 25.7 million, the 144,000 adverse reaction reports represent approximately 0.56% of the population, equating to about 1 in every 179 people. When considering the 22,000 serious adverse reactions, this represents approximately 0.086% of the population, or about 1 in every 1,168 people. This is also roughly in line with Fraiman et al., who found at least 1 in 800 serious adverse reactions.
This is extremely high. For context, the 1976 swine flu vaccine recall in the United States was initiated after it was linked to Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare neurological disorder. The vaccine was associated with approximately 1 case of Guillain-Barré syndrome per 100,000 vaccinations. This event led to the suspension of the vaccine program. The current figures for adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines far exceed the threshold that prompted the swine flu vaccine recall.
Furthermore, Phelps critiques the TGA’s management of adverse reactions. “The TGA never gets back to anybody. They compile this data but they don’t actually follow up. They don’t know how long these vaccine injuries have gone on for. They don’t go back to people and say, you know, ‘Are you still suffering? What’s happening with you now?'” she reveals.
For many Australians, this isn’t just a “conspiracy theory” anymore. Hearing these concerns from the former Australian Medical Association President, Professor Kerryn Phelps, makes it clear that this issue is real. It’s time for real action and support for those affected.
French government fines TV news for allowing a skeptic to speak without being challenged
We know what secrets they fear the most, by how they overreact
By Jo Nova | July 13, 2024
In France, the second largest news network let an economist go on air and declare he thought global warming was a lie and a scam used to justify State intervention. He even went on to say it is a form of totalitarianism. Shockingly (to the regulators Arcom*), the CNEWS TV* hosts did not contest this, and nor did anyone else in the studio. For this, 11 months later, the TV channel is being fined €20,000.
Too close to the truth then?
A popular French rolling news channel has been fined for broadcasting climate scepticism unchallenged
By Saskia O’Donoghue, EuroNews
During the programme, prominent economist Philippe Herlin shared personal climate scepticism – but was not contradicted by anybody else in the TV studio, including the hosts.
“Anthropogenic global warming is a lie, a scam… Explaining to us that it is because of Man, no, that is a conspiracy, and why does that have so much weight?”, Herlin said. “Because it justifies the intervention of the State in our lives, and it absolves the State from having to reduce its public spending… It is a form of totalitarianism.”
Apparently, the real crime here is not that he said the unthinkable, but that the TV crew didn’t correct him:
After investigation, Arcom found that CNews’ lack of reaction was a “failure” to meet the obligations of the channel …
Perhaps if they’d laughed at him, called him petty names, and treated him like a leper it would have been OK? (No, seriously, there is a razor point here. There are bound to be past examples where the only response to a skeptic was to call them a climate denier, and Arcom was apparently happy with that, since they’ve never used this fine before.) Does Arcom approve of namecalling or social approbation as a “balanced response”? Oh. Yes. They. Do.
The regulators go on to explain that the channel:
“… is required to ensure an honest presentation of controversial issues, in particular by ensuring the expression of different points of view”.
Which must be a new requirement since French TV has relentlessly hammered the establishment line in a one sided way for thirty years without needing any balance at all. And Arcom didn’t fine them for shamelessly promoting government propaganda. Perhaps a French skeptic could ask Arcon if controversial government opinions need to be balanced “in an honest presentation” or whether it’s only critics of the government who need to be held to account?
Arcom found that the views shared “contradicted or minimised” the scientific consensus on climate change “through a treatment lacking rigour and without contradiction”.
Since when was it the job of journalists to promote government approved “science”?
The regulator is going out on a limb and sawing off the branch…
Officially, the regulators are trying to pretend they are not punishing the TV channel for putting on a skeptic, which would be a free speech issue, but it’s clearly what they are doing. So they dress this up as a lack of balance, which accidentally exposes that they’ve never cared a jot about balancing opinions before. Immediately, this opens up all kinds of interesting doors: for one, skeptics can start asking where the balance is on controversial government propositions? In most countries about half the population doesn’t agree that mankind is solely responsible for “climate change”. Where is their voice? The government is suggesting that solar panels can stop storms, and EV’s will control floods, why isn’t this a failure of the obligations of a news channel?
Secondly, skeptics can ask when this rule started and why the regulator missed so many past examples. Why aren’t breaches the other way being fined too?
The overreaction IS the news story
Ponder how afraid the believers must be if the mere opinion of an economist is so dangerous. This man is a not a scientist and every person in France has heard the evidence is overwhelming, climate change is real, and 130% of all scientists who ever lived know that CO2 threatens life on Earth. For three decades children have been trained to say that skeptics are funded by Big Oil, and motivated by money, and yet here is one guy who used the word “totalitarian” and they all go off their rocker.
Why, perhaps because it suggests that believers are motivated by a bigger pot of money and power than skeptics ever could be.
* BACKGROUND
Arcon stands for theRegulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication
CNews is controlled by billionaire business magnate Vincent Bolloré and has been compared to FOX in the US.
Top 10 NHS dietary advice FAILS (from a doctor)
Dr Philip Bosanquet | August 4, 2023
The NHS dietary guidelines are not fit for purpose (in my opinion).
Buy The Concise Nutrition and Lifestyle Guide: https://www.bosanquethealth.com/book-… (available worldwide via Amazon).
Visit Bosanquet Health: https://www.bosanquethealth.com The 10 fails are:
10. Approaching healthy eating / nutrition from a calories-in vs calories-out energy balance focus (failing to take into account Leptin).
9. Basing meals on starchy carbohydrates (failing to understand the root cause of insulin resistance, number one driver of obesity and chronic disease).
8. Minimising fat intake (due to it’s calorie density).
7. Promoting seed oils (vegetable oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower oil) as healthy, whilst stating saturated fat is bad / causes cardiovascular disease (papers on this are listed below, see also video on animal fat: 
• Why ANIMAL FAT is the ultimate SUPERF… ).
6. Advising people not to delay or skip meals, including breakfast (failing to appreciate time restricted eating / intermittent fasting).
5. Advice of healthy snacks.
4. Advice on artificial sweeteners as a substitute for sugar.
3. No mention of the gut microbiome, of organic food being better for humans and the environment than non-organic food, of minimally processed or unprocessed foods in preference to overly processed foods, or the quality or nutritional density of food choices.
2. Switching from full cream / full fat / whole milk to semi skimmed / reduced fat milk to help kids lose weight (!). Failing to take into account fat soluble vitamins including vitamin D.
1. Some of the recipe examples given.
Links to papers on saturated fat: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28864…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26268…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34547…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34717…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34509…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27071…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23386…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34290…
Dr Philip Bosanquet The Low-Tech Lifestyle Medic
content (except quotes) copyright to Dr Philip Bosanquet 2023 ©
New Study: ‘Carbon Dioxide And A Warming Climate Are Not Problems’
Instead, warmth and elevated CO2 are a boon for humanity
By Kenneth Richard | No Tricks Zone | July 8, 2024
A new peer-reviewed paper published in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (May and Crok, 2024) counters the prevailing “wisdom” that says a warmer climate and greener vegetation are problematic.
The authors detail the horrors of the much colder Little Ice Age that destroyed civilizations (crop failures, summerless years). Half the population of Finland and 15% of Scotland’s citizens died off in the 1690s due primarily to the cold-induced famines and frozen-over water supplies.
Elevated CO2 and warmth are 70% and 8% responsible, respectively, for a much greener, more vegetated landscape across the world since the 1980s.
The incidence and severity of storms, hurricanes, floods, and extreme weather in general have undergone flat to declining trends over the last several decades. Thus, “it is hard to find any unusual weather or weather-related disaster that can be blamed on climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic.”
“52 of 53 studies of disaster losses due to extreme weather were unable to attribute the events to human causes…”
The US government estimates the warming since 1950 has reduced the country’s gross domestic product by less than 0.5%, and an estimated 3°C of warming by 2100 still only reduces the GDP by less than 1%. Considering the US economy grew by 800% from 1950 to present, this means any assumed “damage” from warmth and elevated CO2 would not be detectable.
The quest to “save” the world from warming and elevated CO2 is devoid of scientific and socio-economic merit.
Image Source: May and Crok, 2024
COVID-19 Modified mRNA “Vaccines”: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Part 1
Mead et al Deliver Counter-Punch after Springer Nature Unethical Retraction of High-Impact Paper
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse™ | July 8, 2024
Every major development in medicine evolves over years with peer-reviewed manuscripts and published correspondence along the lines of arguments and scientific discourse. Never had we seen a new technology and mass mandated line of medical products be introduced with no allowance for proper scientific discourse. Not until mRNA.
Mead and co-workers found themselves at the center of a controversy when Springer Nature CUREUS Journal of Biomedical Sciences retracted their paper calling for global market withdrawal of mRNA vaccines. The retraction violated the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines) for retraction and became a news story garnering even more attention. Other papers continued to cite Mead creating a stinging reverberation for Springer who was hoping to silence the paper.
Now epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead and six co-authors have punched back with the manuscript divided into two parts for a greater depth of data and analysis on the safety and theoretical efficacy of modified mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In Part I, Mead discloses censorship of the first paper by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, a working syndicate that is hell-bent on suppressing any scientific information on COVID-19 side effects.
You may ask what should have occurred? Springer Nature should have never retracted the paper. Rather letters to the editor and responses to the letters from authors should have been published as proper scientific interchange. The new normal is now unethical retraction, massive publicity, and republication with greater amplification of the message—precisely what the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex is trying to squelch.
Mead MN, Seneff S, Wolfinger R, Rose J, Denhaerynck K, Kirsch S, McCullough PA. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign. Cureus. 2024 Jan 24;16(1):e52876. doi: 10.7759/cureus.52876. Retraction in: Cureus. 2024 Feb 26;16(2):r137. doi: 10.7759/cureus.r137. PMID: 38274635; PMCID: PMC10810638.
COVID-19 Modified mRNA “Vaccines” Part 1: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. (2024). International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research , 3(1), 1112-1178. https://doi.org/10.56098/fdrasy50
British Columbia Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Defeated on Judicial Notice
Case of Dr. Charles Hoffe Kills Deferral to Government Offices as Agents of “Truth”
Courageous Discourse™ | July 6, 2024
This was written by Canadian attorney Lee Turner after discussion with Dr. McCullough.
Dr. Charles Hoffe is a family and (former) emergency room physician in British Columbia who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia for making public statements about SARS-CoV-2, the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, and other alternative treatments including ivermectin. Hoffe has successfully defeated an application made by the College seeking judicial notice of the truth of facts alleged by the College concerning these issues. In its efforts to discipline the physician, the College has alleged that the statements made by the physician are misleading, incorrect or inflammatory and constitute professional misconduct. The College asked the discipline panel to take judicial notice of the following facts and thereby prevent the doctor from presenting any contrary evidence in his defence:
- The Covid virus kills or causes other serious effects;
- The virus does not discriminate;
- Vaccines work;
- Vaccines are generally safe and have a low risk of harmful effects, especially in children;
- Infection and transmission of the COVID-19 virus is less likely to occur among fully vaccinated individuals than for those who are unvaccinated; vaccines do not prevent infection, reinfection or transmission, but they reduce the severity of symptoms and the risk of bad outcomes;
- Health Canada has approved COVID vaccines, and regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness;
- Health Canada has not approved ivermectin to treat COVID-19; and
- Health Canada advises that Canadians should not consume the veterinary version of ivermectin.
In its June 29, 2024 decision, the disciplinary panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia declined to take judicial notice of items 2-5, did take judicial notice of items 7-8 (the straightforward ivermectin claims), and took judicial notice of a revised version of items 1 and 6.
The panel was prepared to take judicial notice of item 1 that reads: “COVID-19 can kill or cause other serious effects”.
The College explained their rationale for taking judicial notice of a revised version of item 1 by referencing evidence presented by the doctor in his defence that included the following:
- risk of severe disease and death from COVID-19 is extremely skewed to those above 70 years of age, especially those with multiple comorbidities. The average age of persons that died from COVID-19 in Canada was approximately 84 years old;
- very low proportion of COVID-19 related deaths in Canada occurred in those under 50 years of age-the data shows very high (although not 100%) survival rates for those under 70;
- average rate of lethality from COVID-19 for Canadians is much lower than estimates given by public health officials; and
- reported hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, because many hospitalizations and deaths “with, and not from” COVID-19 were wrongly attributed to COVID-19
With respect to item 6, the panel endorsed findings of an earlier provincial Court of Appeal decision that held the safety and efficacy of any drug is always relative and as a rule the safety and efficacy of a pharmaceutical product cannot be discussed in such blunt fashion as to say that it “is” or “is not” safe and effective. The panel held that the issues raised in the citation should be determined based upon the evidence that is tested through cross-examination rather than by taking judicial notice of one party’s assertion of the facts, and in this case, based upon statements made by public health officials or public health agencies. The panel held that it was prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that Health Canada had approved the COVID – 19 vaccines, but declined to take judicial notice that Health Canada’s approval was a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness.
This decision on the issue of judicial notice, is consistent with the June 28, 2024 decision of the US Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo Secretary of Commerce et. al. which overturned the landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The Chevron decision had given rise to what is commonly referred to as the Chevron deference doctrine. Under this doctrine, federal agencies had the power to interpret a law that they administer when that law is vaguely written, and courts were required to defer to the agency’s interpretation of a statute. In Loper, the US Supreme Court rejected the Chevron deference doctrine calling it “fundamentally misguided.” They said court should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws rather than having to accept the agency’s interpretation. Commentators have suggested that the Chevron deference doctrine gave the powerful – the people who control the agencies like the FDA, CDC and FCC – a significant advantage in court making them essentially the ultimate decision-makers in interpreting ambiguous laws. Commentators have pointed out that many of these agencies are captive agencies with close ties, including financial ties, to the industries that they are charged with regulating and therefore they lack objectivity with respect to those industries. The ruling in Labor means that federal judges now have more authority to interpret these laws. The decision by the British Columbia Disciplinary Panel of the College of Physicians of Surgeons of British Columbia prevents regulatory bodies from saying “it is so because we say it is so”. They have to prove the facts they assert and those who disagree will be allowed to challenge those facts and present contrary evidence.
The case against Dr. Hoffe is far from over. This development is significant in that a government agency cannot make the rules, interpret them, and claim they hold the truth on an evolving scientific or medical issue.
Lee C. Turner, Partner, Doak Sherriff Lawyers, LLC, Kelowna BC V1Y 2A9
(Professional Law Corporation)
Tale Of Two Weather Stations
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | July 3, 2024
Below are photos of two weather stations in Hull.
One is run by the University of Hull’s Environmental Department, the other is used by the Met Office for climatological purposes and typically runs two degrees hotter.
It does not take a genius to work out which is which!
…
Met Office Still Opening Junk Weather Stations
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | July 5, 2024
As we know, 77.9% of the Met Office’s temperature station network is junk Class 4 and 5.
But how many of these have been added in recent years?
The Met Office have now sent me a full list of stations, showing both Class and opening date. Since 2000, 58 stations have been added, out of a current total of 380. However only nine are acceptable Class 1 and 2s:
| Class | No |
| 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 8 |
| 3 | 5 |
| 4 | 29 |
| 5 | 15 |
| Total | 58 |
One Class 4 station was opened as recently as last year at Arthog in Wales.
It is one thing having poorly sited stations which have been around for decades. But I personally find it unacceptable that the Met Office have deemed it appropriate to carry on opening so many more, which they know full well should not be used for climatological purposes.
It is surely not beyond their wit to build a few pristine Class 1 sites. Which leads us to the conclusion that they are doing it deliberately.
Meanwhile in other news, the hottest place in the UK yesterday was ……………… HEATHROW!!
The Supreme Court’s Superb Dissenting Opinion
At least three justices understand what is at stake here
By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | July 5, 2024
Three justices of the Supreme Court actually read and understood the record in our case. Justice Alito, joined by Gorsuch and Thomas, wrote an important dissenting opinion. I’d like to share a few highlights here, as it provides a roadmap to ultimately prevailing in our case.
The three dissenting justices clearly recognize that we the plaintiffs were victims of the government’s unconstitutional censorship activities:
Among these victims were two States, whose public health officials were hampered in their ability to share their expertise with state residents; distinguished professors of medicine at Stanford and Harvard; a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine; the owner and operator of a news website; and Jill Hines, the director of a consumer and human rights advocacy organization. All these victims simply wanted to speak out on a question of the utmost public importance.
Echoing the district court and circuit court opinions, the dissenting justices indicate the landmark importance of this free speech case:
If the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years. Freedom of speech serves many valuable purposes, but its most important role is protection of speech that is essential to democratic self-government, and speech that advances humanity’s store of knowledge, thought, and expression in fields such as science, medicine, history, the social sciences, philosophy, and the arts.
Unlike the majority opinion, which took the government’s claim to be combating “misinformation” at face value, the dissenting opinion recognized that much of the speech that the government suppressed was true:
The speech at issue falls squarely into those categories. It concerns the COVID–19 virus, which has killed more than a million Americans. Our country’s response to the COVID–19 pandemic was and remains a matter of enormous medical, social, political, geopolitical, and economic importance, and our dedication to a free marketplace of ideas demands that dissenting views on such matters be allowed. I assume that a fair portion of what social media users had to say about COVID–19 and the pandemic was of little lasting value. Some was undoubtedly untrue or misleading, and some may have been downright dangerous. But we now know that valuable speech was also suppressed. That is what inevitably happens when entry to the marketplace of ideas is restricted.
The majority opinion suggested, without evidence, that our censorship was the result of the actions of social media platforms, who may have censored us even in the absence of government coercion. The dissenting opinion explains the flaws with this unwarranted assumption:
Of course, purely private entities like newspapers are not subject to the First Amendment, and as a result, they may publish or decline to publish whatever they wish. But government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech, see National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U. S. 175 (2024), and that is what happened in this case.
The record before us is vast. It contains evidence of communications between many different government actors and a variety of internet platforms, as well as evidence regarding the effects of those interactions on the seven different plaintiffs.
Alito focuses on Facebook and co-plaintiff Jill Hines as the clearest example (though by no means the only example) to illustrate the nature of the problem:
Here is what the record plainly shows. For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not comply with their wishes about the suppression of certain COVID–19-related speech. Not surprisingly, Facebook repeatedly yielded. As a result Hines was indisputably injured, and due to the officials’ continuing efforts, she was threatened with more of the same when she brought suit. These past and threatened future injuries were caused by and traceable to censorship that the officials coerced, and the injunctive relief she sought was an available and suitable remedy.
It’s hard to know how much more harm the Supreme Court would need to see before agreeing that at least one of the plaintiffs has standing. These examples could be multiplied. By refusing to examine the record and rule on the merits, Alito suggests that the Court actually provides a roadmap for future government censorship efforts:
This evidence was more than sufficient to establish Hines’s standing to sue, and consequently, we are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents. The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.
That is regrettable. What the officials did in this case was more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in Vullo, but it was no less coercive. And because of the perpetrators’ high positions, it was even more dangerous. It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so. Officials who read today’s decision together with Vullo will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send.
Alito then echoes arguments I published in The Federalist following oral arguments, regarding the key differences between newspapers and social media companies in terms of their interactions with government:
Internet platforms, although rich and powerful, are at the same time far more vulnerable to Government pressure than other news sources. If a President dislikes a particular newspaper, he (fortunately) lacks the ability to put the paper out of business. But for Facebook and many other social media platforms, the situation is fundamentally different. They are critically dependent on the protection provided by §230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U. S. C. §230, which shields them from civil liability for content they spread. They are vulnerable to antitrust actions; indeed, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has described a potential antitrust lawsuit as an “existential” threat to his company. And because their substantial overseas operations may be subjected to tough regulation in the European Union and other foreign jurisdictions, they rely on the Federal Government’s diplomatic efforts to protect their interests.
This dynamic sets social media companies up to be vulnerable to government coercion, in precisely the way we argued before the Court:
For these and other reasons, internet platforms have a powerful incentive to please important federal officials, and the record in this case shows that high-ranking officials skillfully exploited Facebook’s vulnerability. When Facebook did not heed their requests as quickly or as fully as the officials wanted, the platform was publicly accused of “killing people” and subtly threatened with retaliation.
Not surprisingly these efforts bore fruit. Facebook adopted new rules that better conformed to the officials’ wishes, and many users who expressed disapproved views about the pandemic or COVID–19 vaccines were “deplatformed” or otherwise injured.
Alito perfectly describes how this abusive Stockholm Syndrome dynamic played out between Facebook and the White House:
What these events show is that top federal officials continuously and persistently hectored Facebook to crack down on what the officials saw as unhelpful social media posts, including not only posts that they thought were false or misleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless wanted obscured. And Facebook’s reactions to these efforts were not what one would expect from an independent news source or a journalistic entity dedicated to holding the Government accountable for its actions. Instead, Facebook’s responses resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster. Facebook told White House officials that it would “work . . . to gain your trust.” When criticized, Facebook representatives whimpered that they “thought we were doing a better job” but promised to do more going forward. They pleaded to know how they could “get back to a good place” with the White House. And when denounced as “killing people,” Facebook responded by expressing a desire to “work together collaboratively” with its accuser. The picture is clear.
Here we have a major social media platform responding as though they are entirely subservient to government interests. The more they try to please the government by ramping up censorship, the more abusive and demanding the government becomes.
To the dubious claim that plaintiffs cannot allege potential future injuries because—on their word—the White House has backed off the social media companies, Alito (in contrast to the majority opinion) calls the government’s bluff:
The White House threats did not come with expiration dates, and it would be silly to assume that the threats lost their force merely because White House officials opted not to renew them on a regular basis.
As Alito later quips, “death threats can be very effective even if they are not delivered every day.”
Drawing an analogy to another free speech case (Vullo) that was heard on the same day as ours, Alito explains:
In Vullo, the alleged conduct was blunt. The head of the state commission with regulatory authority over insurance companies allegedly told executives at Lloyd’s directly and in no uncertain terms that she would be “‘less interested’” in punishing the company’s regulatory infractions if it ceased doing business with the National Rifle Association. The federal officials’ conduct here [in Murthy] was more subtle and sophisticated. The message was delivered piecemeal by various officials over a period of time in the form of aggressive questions, complaints, insistent requests, demands, and thinly veiled threats of potentially fatal reprisals. But the message was unmistakable, and it was duly received.
The Supreme Court majority was ready to knock down ham-fisted censorship (in Vullo) but gave a pass—at least for now—to sophisticated and debonair censorship (in Murthy).
The government’s defense of its behavior included the argument that it had the right to use the bully pulpit to “persuade” social media companies to do its bidding—”the government has free speech rights, too, don’t you see?” Alito sees right through this ruse:
This argument introduces a new understanding of the term “bully pulpit,” which was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt to denote a President’s excellent (i.e, “bully”) position (i.e., his “pulpit”) to persuade the public. But [Rob] Flaherty, [Andy] Slavitt, and other [White House] officials who emailed and telephoned Facebook were not speaking to the public from a figurative pulpit. On the contrary, they were engaged in a covert scheme of censorship that came to light only after the plaintiffs demanded their emails in discovery and a congressional Committee obtained them by subpoena. If these communications represented the exercise of the bully pulpit, then everything that top federal officials say behind closed doors to any private citizen must also represent the exercise of the President’s bully pulpit. That stretches the concept beyond the breaking point.
In any event, the Government is hard-pressed to find any prior example of the use of the bully pulpit to threaten censorship of private speech.
To repeat what I have said many times before: this case is not about constraining the government’s speech—as they falsely claim; it’s about stopping the government from constraining the speech of U.S. citizens.
The dissenting justices argue that the majority opinion applies a “new and heightened standard” of traceability in our case (p.20). Alito explains, again using the case of co-plaintiff Jill Hines, that she clearly has standing to bring the case (and we only need one plaintiff with standing to prevail):
Here, it is reasonable to infer (indeed, the inference leaps out from the record) that the efforts of the federal officials affected at least some of Facebook’s decisions to censor Hines. All of Facebook’s demotion, content-removal, and deplatforming decisions are governed by its policies. So when the White House pressured Facebook to amend some of the policies related to speech in which Hines engaged, those amendments necessarily impacted some of Facebook’s censorship decisions. Nothing more is needed. What the Court seems to want are a series of ironclad links—from a particular coercive communication to a particular change in Facebook’s rules or practice and then to a particular adverse action against Hines. No such chain was required in the Department of Commerce case, and neither should one be demanded here.
Furthermore, the Court’s majority opinion developed a novel, higher standard of repressibility of potential future harms to avoid ruling on the merits of our case:
As with traceability, the Court applies a new and elevated standard for redressability, which has never required plaintiffs to be “certain” that a court order would prevent future harm.
Having established that the Court should have found that we have standing, Alito proceeds to analyze the record on the merits, using the following legal framework:
The principle recognized in Bantam Books and Vullo requires a court to distinguish between permissible persuasion and unconstitutional coercion, and in Vullo, we looked to three leading factors that are helpful in making that determination: (1) the authority of the government officialswho are alleged to have engaged in coercion, (2) the natureof statements made by those officials, and (3) the reactions of the third party alleged to have been coerced. 602 U. S., at 189–190, and n. 4, 191–194. In this case, all three factors point to coercion.
Although the government tries to spin their interactions with social media platforms as fairly benign, examination of the record in this regard leaves no doubt: “The totality of this record—constant haranguing, dozens of demands for compliance, and references to potential consequences—evince ‘a scheme of state censorship.’” Lest there be any doubt in this regard, “Facebook’s responses to the officials’ persistent inquiries, criticisms, and threats show that the platform perceived the statements as something more than mere recommendations.” Alito concludes, “In sum, the officials wielded potent authority. Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands. And Facebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield.”
From here we return to the District Court in Louisiana for trial, where we have an excellent judge (Terry Doughty). We will be granted additional discovery, in which we anticipate getting enough additional “smoking guns” to cross the high standing bar set by the majority Supreme Court opinion. The District court has combined our case with an analogous case filed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is clearly named and targeted in several government censorship missives—so between Hines and Kennedy there should be no questions on the issue of standing, even under the novel and strict criteria that SCOTUS requires in this case.
In other words, we will prevail in the end. I anticipate being back at the Supreme Court in another year or two for the final ruling. At that point, SCOTUS will not be able to temporize or look away as they did this time. And when judges examine the record in our case, they have only reached one conclusion: the government engaged in unconstitutional censorship on a mass scale. And it has to stop.
Featured Video
Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Greatest Threat to World Peace? A Review of Daniele Ganser’s ‘USA: The Ruthless Empire’
Review by Marilyn Langlois | November 10, 2023
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
If you scoff at the notion that the US, a republic founded on principles of freedom and democracy, has morphed into a world empire, perpetrating assassinations, coups d’état, acts of terror and illegal warfare . . .
If you want to promote peace but haven’t yet explored deceptive events that precipitate US warmongering . . .
. . . here is a volume that will clear the air and paint an honest picture of the significant, not-so-rosy impact US foreign policy and actions have had in the world around us.
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser, is the newly published English language translation of his book Imperium USA, originally written in German and published in 2020. Here is a summary of key points — including some lesser-known ones — along with remedies for a more peaceful future, that are covered in the book. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel
- Putting Nukes in Finland Won’t Make Country Safer, Finnish Politician Cautions
- Ukrainian drone strike kills worker at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant
- What the West Hides About Soviet Role in De-Colonization
- Villains of Judea: Douglas Feith
- US pension fund invests hundreds of millions in weapons firms supplying Israel
- US bill to grant Americans serving in Israeli army same rights as US troops
- What a president, a movie star, a congressman, and a cell phone all dared to say
- ‘An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership’: Merz
- Pakistan Throws Open Its Gates for Iran’s Transit Trade to Third Countries
- If Americans Knew
- Palestinians in Gaza Want to Rebuild Food Systems. Israel Isn’t Letting Them.
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- Sheep Theft Sent Shockwaves Through a Palestinian Village. Then, a 12-year-old Boy Was Shot Dead
- Trump alum helps Israel mount AI influence campaign
- Dispatches From Catastrophe
- Despite Denials, AIPAC Is Now Funding Campaign of Ala Stanford In Philadelphia
- Israel’s neighbors are irate about its treatment of religious sites
- Israel escalates in Gaza: killing, torture, hunger – Daily Update
- Six Months into Gaza Ceasefire, Setting the Record Straight About Aid
- ‘Silent suffering’: Why children in Gaza are losing their ability to speak
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
Aletho News 