5 Filters

Politicians, police, media and corporations are now united in suppressing scientists and the public

#1

From RT:

“YouTube removes lockdown-sceptical interview with renowned immunologist Dr Mike Yeadon for ‘violating terms of service’
Dr Mike Yeadon has argued that the British government is using “lethally incompetent” scientific advice in its Covid-19 response. YouTube has mysteriously taken down a video in which the immunologist explains his point.
…”

A top scientist’s arguments are removed because they challenge the government narrative.

It gets worse:

19/11/20 UK terrorism chief calls for ‘national debate’ on criminalizing doubts about Covid-19 vaccine
RT: The UK’s top counter-terrorism cop has suggested society stop allowing people to question the wisdom of a rapid Covid-19 vaccine rollout, regarding such skepticism to be life-threatening “misinformation.”

Met Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu has pointedly questioned whether it is “the correct thing for society to allow” the sharing of “misinformation that could cost people’s lives” — demonizing all doubts about quickly developed Covid-19 vaccines whose potential long-term effects are not yet known and tying them to extremist radicalization efforts.

Note - egged on by Labour. The RT link says:
" Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth demanded government “deal with some of the dangerous nonsense, nonsensical anti-vax stuff that we’ve seen spreading on social media, which erodes trust in the vaccine” even though no vaccine has yet passed review by UK health authorities and speculation from either “side” of the debate is fully hypothetical."

The tentacles of this drive for conformity seem surprisingly long. Calls for censure have been whipped up by political parties after the SNP conference host, journalist Hayley Matthews (not a party person) had moderately sceptical views expressed on social media on vaccination “exposed” (to quote the Daily Record). Ms Matthews was merely hired as a professional presenter.

She then backpedalled slightly about vaccination, but the storm of shaming, suppression and shroudwaving was already swirling around her head.

“But opposition parties accused the SNP of sending a dangerous mixed message by allowing Ms Matthews to continue as host, and Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard said her presence was an “insult” to the relatives of those who had died of the virus.”

The SNP didn’t send any message!
The storm was unrelenting, and a message to all on the vaccine and covid:

"Scottish Conservative health spokesman Donald Cameron insisted the SNP “must explain why they are continuing to associate themselves with someone who holds these deeply suspect views”.

“People are understandably excited about the prospect of an imminent vaccine and everyone should be encouraging uptake among the public,” he said.

“Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP must condemn these views urgently and not allow vital health messaging to be undermined.”

" Scottish Labour health spokeswoman Monica Lennon told the Daily Record: “Ministers can’t switch off from their responsibilities at SNP conference. Mixed messages on vaccines undermined the pandemic response.

“Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP should distance themselves from people who peddle dangerous nonsense about vaccines, not give them a platform.”

Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton said: “The SNP must seriously reflect on their decision to give someone who is spreading fear and falsehoods about the Covid vaccines such a significant platform alongside the first minister.

“It does a disservice to our dedicated and exhausted health professionals, who have been battling the harsh end of this crisis for months on end, to lend any credibility to people with these views."
(https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/2694430/hayley-matthews/)

Tory MSP for the Highlands and Islands, Donald Cameron, claimed Ms Matthews had brought “embarrassment” to the Scottish Government.

He added: “This is a total embarrassment for the SNP.

“Nicola Sturgeon needs to distance the party of government from these highly dubious comments."

These comments are astonishing - not only every MSP, but everyone who appears on a platform with them must have the same view, even privately.

#2

Disturbing article on the same lines

" On Monday, the UK newspaper The Times reported that the UK’s GCHQ “has begun an offensive cyber-operation to disrupt anti-vaccine propaganda being spread by hostile states” and “is using a toolkit developed to tackle disinformation and recruitment material peddled by Islamic State” to do so.

[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gchq-in-cyberwar-on-anti-vaccine-propaganda-mcjgjhmb2, paywall]

In addition, the UK government has ordered the British military’s 77th Brigade, which specializes in “information warfare,” to launch an online campaign to counter “deceptive narratives” about Covid-19 vaccine candidates. [The British Military Information War Waged On Their Own Population, https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/british-military-information-war-waged-their-own-population.

" The unit therefore ensured those using search terms that indicated bias – such as ‘false flag’ – were presented with factual information on the UK’s response. The RRU improved the ranking from below 200 to number 1 within a matter of hours. "]

The newly announced GCHQ “cyber war” will not only take down “anti-vaccine propaganda” but will also seek to “disrupt the operations of the cyberactors responsible for it, including encrypting their data so they cannot access it and blocking their communications with each other.” The effort will also involve GCHQ reaching out to other countries in the “Five Eyes” alliance (US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) to alert their partner agencies in those countries to target such “propaganda” sites hosted within their borders.

The Times stated that “the government regards tackling false information about inoculation as a rising priority as the prospect of a reliable vaccine against the coronavirus draws closer,” suggesting that efforts will continue to ramp up as a vaccine candidate gets closer to approval.

It seems that, from the perspective of the UK national-security state, those who question corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and its possible impact on the leading experimental Covid-19 vaccine candidates (all of which use experimental vaccine technologies that have never before been approved for human use) should be targeted with tools originally designed to combat terrorist propaganda.

While The Times asserted that the effort would target content “that originated only from state adversaries” and would not target the sites of “ordinary citizens,” the newspaper suggested that the effort would rely on the US government for determining whether or not a site is part of a “foreign disinformation” operation. [Emphasis added]

This is highly troubling given that the US recently seized the domains of many sites, including the American Herald Tribune, which it erroneously labeled as “Iranian propaganda,” despite its editor in chief, Anthony Hall, being based in Canada. The US government made this claim about the American Herald Tribune after the cybersecurity firm FireEye, a US government contractor, stated that it had “moderate confidence” that the site had been “founded in Iran.”

In addition, the fact that GCHQ has alleged that most of the sites it plans to target are “linked to Moscow” gives further cause for concern given that the UK government was caught funding the Institute for Statecraft’s Integrity Initiative, which falsely labeled critics of the UK government’s actions as well as its narratives with respect to the Syria conflict as being related to “Russian disinformation” campaigns.

Given this precedent, it is certainly plausible that GCHQ could take the word of either an allied government, a government contractor, or perhaps even an allied media organization such as Bellingcat or the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab that a given site is “foreign propaganda” in order to launch a cyber offensive against it. Such concerns are only amplified when one of the main government sources for The Times article bluntly stated that “GCHQ has been told to take out antivaxers [sic] online and on social media. There are ways they have used to monitor and disrupt terrorist propaganda,” which suggests that the targets of GCHQ’s new cyber war will, in fact, be determined by the content itself rather than their suspected “foreign” origin. The “foreign” aspect instead appears to be a means of evading the prohibition in GCHQ’s operational mandate on targeting the speech or websites of ordinary citizens.

This larger pivot toward treating alleged “anti-vaxxers” as “national security threats” has been ongoing for much of this year, spearheaded in part by Imran Ahmed, the CEO of the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, a member of the UK government’s Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force, which is part of the UK government’s Commission for Countering Extremism.

Ahmed told the UK newspaper The Independent in July that “I would go beyond calling anti-vaxxers conspiracy theorists to say they are an extremist group that pose a national security risk.” He then stated that “once someone has been exposed to one type of conspiracy it’s easy to lead them down a path where they embrace more radical world views that can lead to violent extremism,” thereby implying that “anti-vaxxers” might engage in acts of violent extremism. Among the websites cited by Ahmed’s organization as promoting such “extremism” that poses a “national security risk” were Children’s Health Defense, the National Vaccine Information Center, Informed Consent Action Network, and Mercola.com, among others."

Note the case (already posted by Dimac) of the American Herald Tribune, that was taken down after US allegations that it was an Iranian outlet.

But as the article notes

“…the effort would rely on the US government for determining whether or not a site is part of a “foreign disinformation” operation.”

#3

“…a recently announced “cyber war” to be commanded by AI-powered arbiters…”

Oh well, bound to work as perfectly as a Musk rocket, then! Why do I get the impression that all this ham-fisted censorship effort is eventually going to disappear up its own fundament, as we plebs give it the finger - as is happening increasingly amongst my local acquaintance. Plenty of sheep will beg for any vaccine which the entrail-fondling public oracles have pronounced ‘fullytestedsafeneffective’ (the lying gits!); but plenty of goats won’t. Go the goats, yay!! Bigtree, Wakefield, and KennedyJr rool, OK!!

The question that always arises is: do these vacc-swallower schmucks really believe the bilge they spout? I haver between thinking: Yes, many of the blind, terrified nerds actually do believe it, and no, they’re just cynical propagandists, pattering out what they know that their career-enslavement requires them to say, but self-anaesthetised from the full horror of their utter self-debasement by doublethink - the universal balm of chisellers everywhere. (Paraphrasing not just Eric Blair, but the great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn here…)

I know from decades of astonished observation that people can believe - or doublethink ‘believe’ - any damn-fool nonsense that they really want to believe, for motives of emotional comfort; and, driven by the same motivation, they can fail to grasp, and write off without engagement, acres of hard scientific realities. (Thinks: Am I myself immune to this? Don’t assume it!)

Seems that the covid panic has stampeded even the ‘leaders’ of society into actually believing their own shite. I regard the current pig’s-breakfast of public policy within the Anglozionist empire’s constituent provinces as a glaring exemplar of precisely that: a whole lot of the dorks in high places - the Bojoids - actually believe their own irrational rubbish. TDS on stilts, innit? Plus cryptofascism on the make as always, of course. :smile:

All this in the abject service of the BPh criminals, ffs! Does common or garden patriotism mean nothing to such bought-fools?

#4

Censorship is the new “informing the public of the *facts”
(*facts: to mean what they say they are)

Nice comment - from RT’s article…

" Silence_Dogood

If the “wrong information” is so dang wrong, then instead of trying to censor it, hold it up to the light of truth that you all claim to have and see who wins. Only those who are afraid of the Truth try to hide it"

Or, as Burns may have meant to have said: “Facts are chiels that winna dang” :wink: