Is The U.S. Postal Service Preparing To Censor Our Mail?

The U.S. Postal Service is discovered to be running a ‘covert operations program’ that monitors Americans’ social media posts. This is stunning and inexplicable except that the USPS is already scanning every piece of mail it handles.

The USPS already reserves the right to open any piece of mail that it receives. Measuring your social media posts against so-called fact checkers could provide a list of senders or recipients whose mail needs to be “examined” more carefully. So, you thought your mail was private? Welcome to Nineteen Eighty-Four! ⁃ TN Editor

The law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service has been quietly running a program that tracks and collects Americans’ social media posts, including those about planned protests, according to a document obtained by Yahoo News.

The details of the surveillance effort, known as iCOP, or Internet Covert Operations Program, have not previously been made public. The work involves having analysts trawl through social media sites to look for what the document describes as “inflammatory” postings and then sharing that information across government agencies.

“Analysts with the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) monitored significant activity regarding planned protests occurring internationally and domestically on March 20, 2021,” says the March 16 government bulletin, marked as “law enforcement sensitive” and distributed through the Department of Homeland Security’s fusion centers. “Locations and times have been identified for these protests, which are being distributed online across multiple social media platforms, to include right-wing leaning Parler and Telegram accounts.”

A number of groups were expected to gather in cities around the globe on March 20 as part of a World Wide Rally for Freedom and Democracy, to protest everything from lockdown measures to 5G. “Parler users have commented about their intent to use the rallies to engage in violence. Image 3 on the right is a screenshot from Parler indicating two users discussing the event as an opportunity to engage in a ‘fight’ and to ‘do serious damage,’” says the bulletin.

“No intelligence is available to suggest the legitimacy of these threats,” it adds.

The bulletin includes screenshots of posts about the protests from Facebook, Parler, Telegram and other social media sites. Individuals mentioned by name include one alleged Proud Boy and several others whose identifying details were included but whose posts did not appear to contain anything threatening.

“iCOP analysts are currently monitoring these social media channels for any potential threats stemming from the scheduled protests and will disseminate intelligence updates as needed,” the bulletin says.

The government’s monitoring of Americans’ social media is the subject of ongoing debate inside and outside government, particularly in recent months, following a rise in domestic unrest. While posts on platforms such as Facebook and Parler have allowed law enforcement to track down and arrest rioters who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, such data collection has also sparked concerns about the government surveilling peaceful protesters or those engaged in protected First Amendment activities.

Read full story here…

Free Speech Has Legal And Ethical Confines, Propaganda Does Not

Americans are not afraid of ignorant people saying ignorant things. Americans are afraid of their own voice being forcibly censored when they try to refute them. Censorship is tantamount to assault and it is anything except Free Speech. ⁃ TN Editor

The non-profit organization that I founded in 2018, Citizens for Free Speech, is weary of the constant propaganda that all speech is protected by the First Amendment, no matter how vile, ignorant or deceptive it might be.

It’s time to set the record straight and put some sanity back into the First Amendment and our exercise of those rights.

The founding fathers intended the First Amendment to protect our unalienable rights to freely communicate ideas and to promote civil debate. Ideas are communicated by the spoken and printed word, plus our associated actions. All five elements of the First Amendment bear this out.

Freedom to worship God implies taking action by assembling together and actually worshipping. Freedom of speech is predicated on your actually speaking words. Freedom of the press requires someone to take a pen and write. Freedom of assembly means getting together to exercise free speech. Asking the government for a redress of your grievances, especially these days, requires herculean effort to even get them to listen, but try we must.

All of these are noble aspirations, but they have been twisted, distorted. mis-understood, misused and maligned by just about everyone who would like to destroy the First Amendment in the first place.

Take the topic of propaganda, for instance, which typically gets a free pass as free speech.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines propaganda as “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause or a person” and “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.”

Such propaganda is raining down on society from all directions: government, Big Pharma, Big Tech, corporate industry, you name it. It’s a constant source of stumping to manipulate people into doing what the propagandists want them to do. For instance, wear a face mask, social distance, stay home, get vaccinated, apply for vaccine mandates, wear two face masks, etc.

In America, even propagandists should be allowed to speak, but here is the rub. What if those very same people were to forcibly censor, cancel, marginalize or slander others who would contradict them in the same public space?

In other words, they put duct tape on your mouth while they give you a good “re-education” on what you should do or think.

This is not free speech. It is fraud: telling only half the story with intent to deceive but not letting anyone else tell the rest of the story to reveal the deception. Every state has laws against fraud, unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Every single one.  Georgetown University Law Center states in the Law of Deception,

 “Many laws address deception. Familiar examples include: the torts of deceit, libel and defamation; the crime of theft by false pretenses and federal mail and wire fraud statutes; the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Lanham Act, and state unfair and deceptive acts and practices laws; laws prohibiting securities fraud and requiring issuer disclosures; the contract defense of misrepresentation; and the law of perjury.”

So, lying and deception is free speech? Try to deceive a police officer and see what you get. Lie to a court, or even Congress and explain that you were only exercising your right to free speech. After they slap you with contempt charges and then felony counts, life will look different to you from inside your prison cell.

Indeed, free speech has legal, ethical and moral boundaries that define its character and intent. Any fool can freely blather ignorant words and call it free speech as long as anyone else can just as freely tell him how ignorant his words are. But if the fool punches you in the face to shut you up, it becomes assault.

The First Amendment is about letting everyone under the sun have their say. Nobody has the right to shut down opposing ideas. Americans are fully capable of making up their own mind as they hear all sides of an argument; in fact, this is the American way that has made America great over the last 245 years.

Big Tech Is Not Immune From State Anti-Censorship Laws

When, as and if states wake up to their own sovereignty, they will realize that they could destroy Big Tech censorship in a very short period of time. Unfortunately, too many state legislators are complicit with or compromised by the same censors. ⁃ TN Editor

As state legislatures look to protect their citizens’ free-speech rights with social media anti-censorship laws, we often hear that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 preempts any such state laws. That line of thought is certainly what Big Tech wants people to believe, but that is also a misapplication of Section 230, which only shields Big Tech from civil liability suits regarding the censorship of sexually obscene or excessively violent material. In the vast majority of cases, political speech and cultural commentary are not sexually obscene or excessively violent.

Whenever investigating the reach and application of a law, the first thing a person should do is examine the language of the law itself. There are several plain-language reasons why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not apply to political free speech.

First, the title of the law is the Communications Decency Act. It is not the Communications Ban Anything You Want Act, the Communications Political Correctness Act, the Communications Politeness Act, or the Communications Arbiter of Truth Act. The explicit purpose of the legislation is listed in its title: to allow Internet platforms to block indecency if they so choose.

Second, the section of the Act—section (c)(2)(A)—that provides internet providers civil protection is titled, “Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material.” The title of this section, like the title of the Act itself, shows the purpose is to grant protections for censorship of a finite, explicitly defined category of material—“offensive” and “indecent” material.

Third, the Act provides explicit examples of offensive and indecent material that internet platforms may censor. Every explicit example involves sexual obscenity or excessive violence, which fit clearly and comfortably within the title of the Act. Content that is explicitly subject to censorship is that which is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” None of these explicit examples are even remotely connected or similar to political speech or cultural commentary.

So how do Big Tech apologists argue that Section 230 gives them carte blanche power to censor and ban any speech they wish? They claim that the final three words in section (c)(2)(A)—“or otherwise objectionable”—mean that Congress intended to allow internet platforms to censor and ban anything they please, well beyond material that is indecent and offensive. Of course, that begs the common-sense question: Why would Congress explicitly title the Act the Communications Decency Act if Congress intended to grant censorship protections regarding decent and indecent material alike? Why would Congress place civil protections for censorship under Good Samaritan and offensive material if Congress intended to grant censorship protections to everything else as well?

Fortunately, we don’t need to rely solely on common sense. Congress provided additional clear instruction.

The language of the Communications Decency Act explicitly states that it is Congress’ policy to “encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools” (emphasis mine). Congress is instructing us that these narrowly defined censorship protections are not to be applied broadly and that, other than these narrow exceptions, Congress is emphasizing that users themselves (rather than internet platforms) should determine what they share and receive from one another.

Also, the explicit language of section (c)(2)(A) states that internet platforms must make a “good faith” determination that material runs afoul of the statute in order to have immunity from civil suits. However, interpreting the final three words of section (c)(2)(A) to allow internet providers to censor and ban anything they wish makes the statute’s requirement of “good faith” determinations unnecessary and silly. One can reasonably assume that Congress would not include a requirement for a “good faith” determination that certain material qualifies for censorship protection if literally everything in the world qualifies for censorship protection.

Read full story here…

Biden Administration Ramping Up For New Battle Over Net Neutrality

The main idea in this article is confirmed by Glenn Greenwald’s analysis in his article, Congress Battles Big Tech CEO’s To Transfer Censorship Oversight. A massive campaign is underway to seize control over censorship and use it as a political weapon. ⁃ TN Editor

In 2019, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) stood with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to launch their radical Green New Deal that would flip America’s economic system into a resemblance of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset.” In terms of high-tech industry lingo, “disruptive” would be the right adjective to use.

The Verge reports that Markey is now on a track to introduce new legislation that would re-implement net neutrality that “would engrave the no throttling, block, or paid fast lanes rules into law.”

Should Markey’s new bill fail, his plan B is to stack the FCC with enough Democrats to take matters into their own hands. He explained to The Verge that “Once we have three Democrats in place at the Federal Communications Commission, I will strongly urge it to reverse the Trump FCC wrongheaded decision and restore net neutrality and the FCC’s authority over broadband.”

Net Neutrality as a political issue was originally introduced by then-Senator Barack Hussein Obama. On October 29, 2007, Obama stated,

“I am a strong supporter of net neutrality … What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites … And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet—which is that there is this incredible equality there.”

The keyword to note here is government-mandated “equality.”

The radical left organization, Common Dreams is joining the call for net neutrality. It claims “nearly 80 million people in the U.S. still do not have adequate broadband at home-with poor families and people of color disproportionately disconnected.” There is no proof offered for these vague statistics.

By the way, the person who originally coined the term “net neutrality” in 2003 was Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu. He recently joined the Biden White House staff as a top advisor on technology and competition issues. His appointment was hailed as a win for progressives. In 2018, Wu preview authored “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age.”

One recent article, from Reuters, detailing his new position stated:

“Congressional Democrats have already begun talks with the White House on ways to crack down on tech companies, including making them responsible for disinformation and addressing their market power.”

Previous discussions about net neutrality have always been contentious and full of disinformation. Free market forces, subject to all the currently standing anti-trust and anti-competition laws, are sufficient to sort out problems of content delivery to consumers, if only those laws would be enforced.

It appears that the new administration has other motives in taking control of how ISPs (Internet Service Providers) and content providers run their businesses.

Government control will fix all that. Biden wants to enforce and accelerate the already rampant censorship being practiced by Big Tech today. Remember the phrase above, “including making them responsible for disinformation.”

With the First Amendment and free speech already under fire and with so-called “fact checkers” constantly determining what is disinformation and what is not, the Biden administration is ramping up to take direct control of both content suppliers as well as ISPs, with penalties applied to the non-compliant.

This battle for control has been brewing for a long time. Engadget reported that from 2003 onward, the concept of net neutrality “terrified those who were concerned about government regulation” and that “the back-and-forth between those camps will likely continue for years.“

Tim Wu’s 2005 paper, “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination” did not mention a single word about content management, disinformation or fake news. The inclusions of these terms into current proposals for net neutrality is new and considering that it is coming from the radical left should make everyone shiver.

In short, today’s net neutrality is not about helping gamers and video consumers get more bandwidth. It is not about equality. Rather, it is about institutionalizing Internet censorship, forcing everyone who disseminates or transmits content to abide by infamous fact-checker rules as leftists determine them.

Let me make it very clear: If your blog or journal publishes something that the government declares is false, you are going to be punished for it.

Welcome to Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. If Americans don’t repel these assaults on the First Amendment, the rest of the Constitution will fall like dominoes.

Be assured that Big Media will soon spin up a fresh news cycle on “Progressive style” net neutrality; just don’t believe everything that you read.

Congress Battles Big Tech CEO’s To Transfer Censorship Oversight

A Democrat-controlled Congress is anxious to grab censorship authority away from Big Tech platforms like Google, Twitter and Facebook. This is not an isolated incident, but is indicative of why the Biden Administration is reviving the battle for Net Neutrality, which I recently wrote about. ⁃ TN Editor

Over the course of five-plus hours on Thursday, a House Committee along with two subcommittees badgered three tech CEOs, repeatedly demanding that they censor more political content from their platforms and vowing legislative retaliation if they fail to comply. The hearing — convened by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Chair Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), and the two Chairs of its Subcommittees, Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) — was one of the most stunning displays of the growing authoritarian effort in Congress to commandeer the control which these companies wield over political discourse for their own political interests and purposes.

As I noted when I reported last month on the scheduling of this hearing, this was “the third time in less than five months that the U.S. Congress has summoned the CEOs of social media companies to appear before them with the explicit intent to pressure and coerce them to censor more content from their platforms.” The bulk of Thursday’s lengthy hearing consisted of one Democratic member after the next complaining that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey have failed in their duties to censor political voices and ideological content that these elected officials regard as adversarial or harmful, accompanied by threats that legislative punishment (including possible revocation of Section 230 immunity) is imminent in order to force compliance (Section 230 is the provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields internet companies from liability for content posted by their users).

Republican members largely confined their grievances to the opposite concern: that these social media giants were excessively silencing conservative voices in order to promote a liberal political agenda (that complaint is only partially true: a good amount of online censorship, like growing law enforcement domestic monitoring generally, focuses on all anti-establishment ideologiesnot just the right-wing variant). This editorial censoring, many Republicans insisted, rendered the tech companies’ Section 230 immunity obsolete, since they are now acting as publishers rather than mere neutral transmitters of information. Some Republicans did join with Democrats in demanding greater censorship, though typically in the name of protecting children from mental health disorders and predators rather than ideological conformity.

As they have done in prior hearings, both Zuckerberg and Pichai spoke like the super-scripted, programmed automatons that they are, eager to please their Congressional overseers (though they did periodically issue what should have been unnecessary warnings that excessive “content moderation” can cripple free political discourse). Dorsey, by contrast, seemed at the end of his line of patience and tolerance for vapid, moronic censorship demands, and — sitting in a kitchen in front of a pile of plates and glasses — he, refreshingly, barely bothered to hide that indifference. At one point, he flatly stated in response to demands that Twitter do more to remove “disinformation”: “I don’t think we should be the arbiters of truth and I don’t think the government should be either.”

Zuckerberg in particular has minimal capacity to communicate the way human beings naturally do. The Facebook CEO was obviously instructed by a team of public speaking consultants that it is customary to address members of the Committee as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” He thus began literally every answer he gave — even in rapid back and forth questions — with that word. He just refused to move his mouth without doing that — for five hours (though, in fairness, the questioning of Zuckerberg was often absurd and unreasonable). His brain permits no discretion to deviate from his script no matter how appropriate. For every question directed to him, he paused for several seconds, had his internal algorithms search for the relevant place in the metaphorical cassette inserted in a hidden box in his back, uttered the word “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” stopped for several more seconds to search for the next applicable spot in the spine-cassette, and then proceeded unblinkingly to recite the words slowly transmitted into his neurons. One could practically see the gears in his head painfully churning as the cassette rewound or fast-forwarded. This tortuous ritual likely consumed roughly thirty percent of the hearing time. I’ve never seen members of Congress from across the ideological spectrum so united as they were by visceral contempt for Zuckerberg’s non-human comportment:

But it is vital not to lose sight of how truly despotic hearings like this are. It is easy to overlook because we have become so accustomed to political leaders successfully demanding that social media companies censor the internet in accordance with their whims. Recall that Parler, at the time it was the most-downloaded app in the country, was removed in January from the Apple and Google Play Stores and then denied internet service by Amazon, only after two very prominent Democratic House members publicly demanded this. At the last pro-censorship hearing convened by Congress, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) explicitly declared that the Democrats’ grievance is not that these companies are censoring too much but rather not enough. One Democrat after the next at Thursday’s hearing described all the content on the internet they want gone: or else. Many of them said this explicitly.

At one point toward the end of the hearing, Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), in the context of the January 6 riot, actually suggested that the government should create a list of groups they unilaterally deem to be “domestic terror organizations” and then provide it to tech companies as guidance for what discussions they should “track and remove”: in other words, treat these groups the same was as ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Words cannot convey how chilling and authoritarian this all is: watching government officials, hour after hour, demand censorship of political speech and threaten punishment for failures to obey. As I detailed last month, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the state violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee when they coerce private actors to censor for them — exactly the tyrannical goal to which these hearings are singularly devoted.

Read full story here…

Judges Impose New Type Of Censorship: ‘Banned From The Internet’

The newest form of extreme censorship is to simply ban someone from accessing the Internet at all. The charge is spreading disinformation and fake news, which is subjectively in the eyes of the beholder. This could become comparable to “no fly lists” for suspected terrorists. ⁃ TN Editor

Beverly Hills esthetician and eyelash stylist Gina Bisignano was so present on social media that the federal criminal complaint against her practically wrote itself.

The story of a 52-year-old salon owner who charted a dark path of disinformation to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, where she allegedly grabbed a bullhorn and urged rioters to take up weapons, is backed by one social media post after another embedded in the Department of Justice filing.

There is Bisignano in her Louis Vuitton sweater, filmed in front of the Capitol talking about her business and hometown as the riot was getting underway. There she is again, addressing rioters with a rant about globalists, George Soros and stolen votes. And again, calling for weapons and gas masks moments before a rioter attacks an officer with what appears to be a baseball bat.

Now, Bisignano has gone silent online. She is not allowed on the internet. Not because social media platforms banned her, but because a federal judge did. If Bisignano goes online while awaiting trial, she risks being jailed.

Judges have long been reluctant to ban anyone from the internet, a restriction that essentially cuts a person off from much of modern society and has been reserved mostly for accused and convicted pedophiles. But as toxic disinformation becomes an increasingly dangerous threat, driving domestic terrorism and violence, the courts are facing vexing new questions around how often and under what circumstances those accused of taking part should be taken offline altogether.

“We are headed into uncharted waters,” said Nina Jankowicz, a fellow at the Wilson Center, a Washington think tank, where she studies disinformation. “Given the threats we see continuing and the heightened alerts, it is clear things are not dissipating. … That is why judges are making these calls.”

In the case of Bisignano, the ban might have been an easy one for the judge to make. The defendant asked for it. Her lawyer saw it as one of the few bargaining chips the Capitol riot suspect from California had to stay out of jail for now.

“If it weren’t for social media, she wouldn’t even be a defendant,” said Bisignano’s attorney, Charles Peruto. “She knows that is what got her jammed in the first place.”

Yet attorneys for others accused of taking part in the attack on the Capitol are aggressively fighting the restrictions, and judges are struggling with how far to take them.

Prosecutors have moved to bar at least five defendants in the Capitol insurrection from going on social media platforms or even going online at all, according to a review of court filings by The Times. Those defendants are awaiting trial dates that will be months away as the Justice Department grapples with one of the most complex and all-consuming investigations in its history.

They include John Sullivan, a Utah man accused of obstructing Congress as he allegedly joined the rampage through the Capitol in tactical gear, encouraging rioters to do damage. Over the objections of prosecutors, a federal magistrate judge ruled Sullivan may continue supervised use of Facebook, Twitter and “encrypted platforms.”

In arguing for the ban, prosecutors pointed to video of Sullivan threatening police, breaking a window and telling other rioters “we gotta get this s— burned.”

Yet Sullivan’s attorney, Steve Kiersh, argued that the defendant was there as a journalist, claiming he sold some of his footage to news networks. He accused prosecutors of trying to impede his client’s ability “to communicate the way the vast majority of Americans communicate.” The restriction, Kiersh wrote in a court filing, would prevent Sullivan from keeping up with friends and family online or even checking the news, as media websites, which invite user comments, fall under the umbrella of social media.

Such concerns drove the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017 to strike down a North Carolina law that prohibited convicted sex offenders from using social media platforms. The court found that the ban unconstitutionally put out of reach “what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.”

“Courts are recognizing that social media is very important to people’s lives in a number of ways,” said Alexis Karteron, director of the Rutgers Constitutional Rights Clinic. In September, the Rutgers clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union persuaded a federal court to block enforcement of a New York law broadly banning social media use by sex offenders.

“There are unquestionably serious rights at stake,” Karteron said.

Read full story here…

Joseph Mercola Censorship Continues With His New Book On COVID

Censorship is rampant in America and around the world. Mercola’s new book “The Truth About COVID-19” is getting immediate pressure from all quarters, even though it has not been released yet. It can be pre-ordered directly from the publisher. This is Mercola’s personal account. ⁃ TN Editor

In my latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” I investigate the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and how the technocratic elite use this pandemic to erode your personal liberty and freedom. I also review strategies that can help protect you against this infection, and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic takeover.

My book won’t be available until April 29, 2021, but is available right now for preorder on Amazon. Not surprisingly, Amazon is now being pressured to ban this book, under the auspice that it might make people rethink their decision to get vaccinated.

While it is less than ideal to ask you to purchase this book from Amazon, the reality is the high rankings you help us achieve creates massive visibility that will help others become familiar with this controversial information.

Australian Sky News1 found Amazon, Waterstones and Foyles all sell what it calls “anti-vaccine” and “COVID conspiracy” books, and vendors are now being urged to pull, block or add some sort of warning label to them.2 As noted by Sky News:3

“In the UK, more than 20 million vaccine doses have been administered as part of efforts to defeat COVID-19, but worries continue that misinformation is stopping some people from having the jab. Shadow health minister Alex Norris told Sky News:

‘Getting our population vaccinated is a massive priority and it is very sad to see these things so freely available. We would hope that retailers would act responsibly and have a look at whether they want to be associated with such products and whether they want to be seen to be profiting off such products.’”

Modern-Day Book Burning

Interestingly, Sky News discovered that a majority of “anti-vaccine” books were published after March 2020, suggesting interest in and sales of these books have increased since the pandemic began.

Sky News points out that many of “anti-vaccine” books — most of which, by the way, are written by licensed and educated health experts — have five-star reviews, and as a category, they are frequently among the Top 10 best sellers in the children’s vaccination category. But public evaluation of the material matters not in this case. A free-thinking public simply cannot be tolerated; freedom of speech must be stopped or labeled with black boxes.

The question that is never answered is, who decides what is “legitimate text,” to use Sky News’ term, and what is “misinformation”? Is there a person alive who is always 100% correct and can make that determination? Or does getting to the truth involve the ability to sift through and balance pros and cons; shades of gray; levels of uncertainty? As Toby Young, general secretary for the Australian Free Speech Union told Sky News:4

“The problem with placing a limit on free speech and saying ‘we’re going to ban people who say or write things that are potentially harmful’ is that that word potentially is quite vague.

If you grant yourself that right, you’re granting yourself the right to ban almost anything. The second [issue] is, who defines what is harmful? We think that there is a scientific consensus around things like the COVID vaccines but actually science is constantly developing and evolving new information is coming to light.”

Sadly, that kind of common sense is not to be tolerated anymore. It’s all about “burning the evidence” at this point, to prevent people from learning anything that might break the one-sided control narrative. As Sky News admits, only 10% of Amazon search results lead to anti-narrative content, thanks to hidden algorithms that suppress certain categories of books.5

It’s hard to imagine that book burning would be accepted in this modern era, but here we are. History repeats itself, and censorship has been a go-to strategy for all authoritarian regimes.

The fact that the press goes along with it, and actually encourages it, tells you just how controlled the world has become. The dictatorial power structure we’re currently facing off against is not a national one; it’s a global phenomenon, centered primarily within nongovernmental organizations and private “philanthropic” foundations that have a stranglehold on mainstream media.

FDA Wants Me to Stop Giving COVID Nutrition Advice

At present, it looks as though efforts to eradicate my book will fail, as preorders are rolling in at a steady pace, but that doesn’t mean they won’t continue trying.

Earlier this month, Dr. Peter Lurie6 — a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration associate commissioner7 and current president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) — bragged8 about his ability to influence the FDA into sending me a warning letter9 for “unapproved and misbranded products related to COVID-19.”

According to the FDA, my vitamin C, vitamin D3 and quercetin products are “unapproved new drugs sold in violation of section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

As support for this claim of wrongdoing, the FDA highlights statements in articles on my website that are fully referenced and supported by published science. None of these articles have any commercial advertising linking the information to my products, and none of my product pages makes claims about preventing, curing or treating COVID-19.

Even this seemingly benign tweet stating practical adoption of vitamin c and vitamin d in mainstream medicine was listed as an offensive, illegal message.

The fully referenced article, “Vitamins C and D Finally Adopted as Coronavirus Treatment,” provides proof that this statement is completely truthful. But, the truth becomes treason in an empire of lies.

I co-wrote a scientific publication with William Grant, Ph.D.,10 and Dr. Carol Wagner,11 both of whom are on the GrassrootsHealth vitamin D expert panel. In it, we demonstrate the clear link between vitamin D deficiency and severe cases of COVID-19. This paper was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Nutrients.12

I am committed to providing truthful information, for free, to anyone that wants it, and I am not going to allow people to die from COVID-19 and other respiratory infections due to vitamin D deficiency or any other easily remedied cause.

Gates-Backed CSPI-Allied Group Wants Me Gone

The agrochemical front group Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS),13 the primary funding for which comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,14 was quick to jump on CSPI’s bandwagon, falsely stating15 that “pages advertising vitamin C and quercetin as having ‘synergistic effects that make them useful in the prevention and early at-home treatment of COVID-19’ were still online” nearly a month after the FDA’s warning letter.

The false statement there is “pages advertising.” There are a) advertisement/marketing pages for products in my online shop, and b) fully referenced scientific news articles, which are not, in fact, “advertising,” as they are not linked to any of my products, nor do they refer to or recommend any specific brands, mine or otherwise.

Such coordinated attacks are to be expected, though, considering Gates’ influence over the operation, and seeing how CAS and CSPI work closely together — a fact CAS admits in its attempted hit piece.16

Shady ‘Anti-Hate’ Outfit Publishes Hit List

Then there’s the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a shady U.K.-based organization with anonymous funding led by Imran Ahmed. Ironically, while CCDH is supposed to be an “anti-hate” group focused on combating online hate speech, Ahmed pursues his enemies with unbridled extremist rhetoric aimed at riling up public outrage against them.

In short, what Ahmed is really engaged in is digital hate coaching. He’s even gone so far as to publish an actual hit list17 of the “Top 10 anti-vaxxers” it wants permanently silenced and eradicated from public forums. The list shows, by way of crossing out names, which have already been successfully deplatformed, and from which social media.

CCDH Is a Tool for Global Technocracy

Ahmed is the CEO and founder of CCDH, and was appointed to the steering committee of the U.K. government’s Commission on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force in April 2020, just as fearmongering about the COVID-19 pandemic was ramping up.

Aside from Ahmed, the CCDH consists of a single “Patron,” British TV personality and Countdown host Rachael Riley,19 and a seven-person board of directors that “supports and scrutinizes” Ahmed’s work.

According to Influence Watch,20 Riley worked with Ahmed to get commentator Katie Hopkins and MP George Galloway banned from Twitter back in January 2020, actually meeting in person with Twitter executives in London. Hopkins’ account was permanently suspended21 while Galloway’s was not.

The CCDH’s funding comes primarily from “philanthropic trusts,” according to this not-readily-accessible web page, but no specific trusts are listed. However, through the connection of co-founder Morgan McSweeney — who left the CCDH for a chief of staff position with Labour Leader Keir Starmer — we can deduce that the CCDH is connected with the technocratic hub that is the Trilateral Commission, where Starmer is a serving member.22

The group can also be linked to other technocratic centers within the globalist network through its board chairman Simon Clark and board member Kirsty McNeill.23

Clark is a senior fellow for the policy think-tank Center for American Progress and chairman of Foreign Policy for America, members of which include Stephen Grand, who is a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, and Avril Haines, former deputy director of the CIA.

Simon also served as the first director of web services for Reuters, one of the three global news agencies responsible for curating a vast majority of the world’s news. You can learn more about the structure of global news in “Reuters and BBC Caught Taking Money for Propaganda Campaign.”

McNeill, meanwhile, is a member of the European Council of Foreign Relations — another key player behind the Great Reset — and director of policy for Save the Children Fund, which is funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Alliance.

Another board member is Damian Collins, a member of the British Parliament and former chair of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. So much for being a nongovernmental organization. Collins also founded Infotagion, which “seeks to fight the disinformation contagion about COVID-19.”24

Ahmed Invents Easily Disproven Lie to Create ‘Buzz’

While Ahmed riles against people who publish truthful, fully referenced information about COVID-19 and related vaccines, he fails at the very basics of information-sharing himself.

In “Dismantling the Anti-Vaxx Industry,”25 a short article that somehow made its way into the journal Nature Medicine, Ahmed provides five references, two of which are CCDH material that he himself created. Another two are mainstream media articles that coach hate against “anti-vaxxers.”

He also lies by saying he “recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers,” when in fact it was a public, international conference given online, attended by thousands around the world, all of whom had access to the recordings.

He could have done the normal, ethical, truly journalistic thing and admitted he simply attended a public virtual conference, but he chose not to. Instead, he twisted it into some undercover agent mission where he secretly recorded private discussions that revealed the inner workings of “the opposition.”

It’s laughable, really. The thing is, when people bother creating such unnecessary and easily exposed lies, it really doesn’t bode well for their honesty and forthrightness in more serious matters — such as vaccine safety, for example.

Getting banned by technocrats and billionaire front groups is a badge of honor, and will only make people more interested to see what the elitists are trying to hide.

Read full story here…

Twitter Claims Exclusive Truth On Vaccines, All Others Will Be Banned

Technocrats at Twitter are exerting their twisted belief system that they and they alone have the truth about the pandemic, COVID, vaccines and related issues; all others will be banned from their platform.

This is a clear tell that Scientism is driving the narrative. Scientism is the underlying philosophy of both Technocracy and Transhumanism and it believed that science is the only source of truth. The problem is that is does not distinguish between pseudo-science and real science. ⁃ TN Editor

Social media giant Twitter announced this week that it will begin labeling tweets that share “misleading information” about the coronavirus vaccine and will implement a strike system for repeat offenders of the “misinformation policy.”

The Verge reports that Twitter announced on Monday that it will begin labeling tweets that share what the company decides is misleading information about coronavirus vaccines. The labels will link to relevant information from government bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a system allowing for five strikes will be implemented for users that repeatedly violate its misinformation policies.

Repeated violations of the policies could lead to Twitter locking or permanently suspending accounts. The new labels are similar to Facebook’s anti-misinformation banners which were launched as part of Facebook’s attempts to curb what it considers coronavirus misinformation last December.

Twitter plans to apply the new labels through a combination of human and automated review systems and will begin the rollout with English language content first. The criteria for labeling coronavirus posts have been outlined in Twitter’s misleading information policy but overall Twitter is focusing on five categories of false or misleading information, according to the Verge:

  • Misinformation about the nature of the virus
  • Misinformation about the efficacy of treatments and preventive measures
  • Misinformation about regulations, restrictions, and exemptions in association with health advisories
  • Misinformation about the prevalence of the virus and the risk of infection or death
  • Misleading affiliations (for example, claiming to be a doctor or public health official)

Labels will also play a major part in the new strike system. Twitter has stated that a tweet deemed harmful by the company counts as one strike. A tweet that adds to a larger conspiracy connected to the virus that Twitter deems dangerous, such as the idea that vaccines include microchips to track people, may also be deleted by the platform.

Twitter’s punishments for the different number of strikes, according to the Verge, are:

  • One strike: no account-level action
  • Two strikes: 12-hour account lock
  • Three strikes: 12-hour account lock
  • Four strikes: 7-day account lock
  • Five or more strikes: permanent suspension

Read full story here…

Amazon’s Book Purging Mocks First Amendment, Shreds Knowledge

Amazon is a monopoly in the book publishing industry and has taken to banning existing books from its system that management does not agree with. Other publishers that use Amazon’s print-on-demand services are now refusing new books that it knows Amazon will ban. ⁃ TN Editor

If you wanted to eliminate disfavored ideas from a society, you’d begin by aggregating most of the world’s books onto a single platform. You’d hope to create a global network of gargantuan warehouses, automated to allow next-day fulfillment of customer desires. If you were wildly successful, your company might one day control five sixths of U.S. book sales and generate a market capitalization that rivals the GDP of Canada.

If you also delivered groceries, clothing, and hardware during a pandemic, and hosted businesses’ websites, too—you might become so integral to people’s lives, they would be hard-pressed to quit you. Customers spoiled by the miracle of having milk and toilet paper delivered same-day to their door would be disinclined to protest as you began eliminating books, especially if it was just a few at a time. You’d have become the hand that feeds them; they’d be smart enough not to bite.

Writers themselves might object. But their agents would fall silent; they’d have other clients to think of. Publishers—whose continued viability depends on this central pipeline—would be loath to offer more than token resistance. A momentary stifling of conscience would seem small sacrifice to ensure their other books were spared.  Forget the “firemen” from Fahrenheit 451: You needn’t burn forbidden books if people can’t buy them in the first place.

Last week, Ryan Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, vanished from “the world’s largest bookstore.” The hardbacks, the paperbacks—even the used copies of When Harry Became Sally sold by third-party sellers through Amazon—poof, gone. When questioned by Anderson’s publisher, Amazon lamely pointed to a new policy that permits it to bar “inappropriate and offensive” works and also “hate speech.” It never bothered to offer proof or explain how Anderson’s book ran afoul of these guidelines; it apparently didn’t think it needed to.

The New York Post’s editorial board attempted to explain why Amazon targeted this particular three-year old book: Anderson’s “scholarly analysis of transgenderism . . . questions politically correct sacred cows.” But there are plenty of other politically-incorrect volumes sold on Amazon, including Anderson’s 2012 book, What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense—a conservative objection to gay marriage. I suspect What is Marriage’s home on will remain undisturbed—not for lack of controversy, but for lack of relevance.

And here we get to the key difference between the two books: The legality of gay marriage has been settled in America. Whatever people’s private feelings about gay marriage, its legality in America is beyond dispute, and its acceptance by American society, widespread. Opposing it is a dead issue, a loser. And as Amazon well knows, no book is likely to change that.

But transitioning minors—that’s another story. For all the sloganeering about how the sanctity of affirmation-based treatment is settled practice, it isn’t. Leading psychotherapists have challenged “affirmative care” and its abuses have been acknowledged in open court. J.K. Rowling’s well-publicized alarm at the spike in transgender identification among teen girls, followed by the publication of my book, encouraged a widespread backlash against the idea that it is wrong or repressive to question the protocols governing the medical transition of minors.

More importantly, the very week Anderson’s book disappeared, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, which is now headed for a vote by the Senate. If it passes, it will grant biological males who self-identify as “women” an all-access pass to girls’ and women’s sports and safe spaces.

Should a biologically male convict gain access to a women’s prison based only on self-identification as a “woman”? Should a biologically male high school student be entitled to compete in women’s wrestling or sprinting? Anderson’s book argues “no,” for reasons lawmakers might be curious to discover. Which is why, in the end, Amazon picked this week to delete a three-year old book.

Some will argue it is Amazon’s right to drop a book. Though it possesses many of the frightful powers of government and few of the limitations—Amazon is not the government. As a private company, many argue, it retains the right to stock its shelves with whatever it chooses. As someone put it to me on Twitter, “Publix stopped carrying my favorite salad dressing. You know what? I went to another store and bought it.”

This is the “Colorado Bakeshop” argument, which the Supreme Court considered in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Private businesses might have the right not to sell certain things customers want. It’s my cakeshop, damn it, runs the argument. If the proprietor doesn’t want to create a cake celebrating a gay wedding, or anything else that violates his conscience—maybe he shouldn’t have to.

But the argument is inapt: Amazon isn’t a neighborhood bakery. Small independent bookstores can (and often do) claim to be in the business of promoting a certain kind of speech. There are Christian bookstores and feminist bookstores and everything in between. And forcing such stores to sell books they don’t like would compromise the owners’ free-speech rights by forcing them to engage in what is arguably a form of compelled speech. But Amazon operates on a vast scale. Scale is the difference between homicide and genocide, a pickpocket and Bernie Madoff.

Amazon gladly carries Mein Kampf without fear that anyone will attribute its anti-Semitism to the bookseller because Amazon distributes millions of titles.

Nor is it honest to argue that we can impose no restraints on private companies. Businesses are already thoroughly regulated—in terms of whom they may refuse to serve, the minimum pay, and maximum hours and workplace conditions owed to employees. Thanks to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, private employers may even be barred from insisting that male employees wear a male uniform. Forcing a multinational on which nearly every American publisher depends to carry the widest array of books imposes no more significant limitation on its freedom.

But most importantly, the Colorado Bakeshop comparison fails because when a small bookshop refuses to carry a specific title, that act carries no significant market consequences. A reader could march into another bookstore and order Anderson’s book. Not so with the pipeline through which five-sixths of America’s books flow.

As a direct result of Amazon’s action, many outstanding books will now go unwritten; they will not be commissioned whenever Amazon’s distribution is the slightest bit in doubt. As I write this, authors are being dropped by agents or politely refused representation, based on what the agents now know Amazon will not carry. “I’m just thinking of your career,” agents will say. “Why not try something a little less inflammatory?” (A little more Amazon-friendly). Publishers will apply endless euphemisms for “no,” to otherwise worthy proposals. Why should publishers spend sleepless nights worrying that Amazon will unaccountably vaporize their investment?

This is the “chilling effect” of censorship, John Milton called the “greatest displeasure and indignity to a free and knowing spirit that can be put upon him.” When censorship is imposed by the government—or the world’s third largest multinational—it forbids new life like a frost.

Had the government banned Anderson’s book, Anderson would now be headed to federal court, where he would prevail. When Amazon acts, the independent writer has nowhere to go. Anderson’s recourse? He can complain about it on Twitter, which hosts any of us only as long as it feels like it.

In a time marked by so much suppression of speech by Big Tech, the muggings can begin to run together. We are already growing accustomed to cancellation. But of all the violence to free inquiry we’ve witnessed in the last year, the deliberate disappearance of a mainstream conservative book is among the very worst.

Remember where you were in February of 2021. Congress fought over a second impeachment of an ex-president. The states debated whether forced truancy would make life easier for America’s teachers. And earth’s largest bookseller—(Internal motto: “Work Hard. Have Fun. Make history.”)—began quietly deleting books.

Read full story here…


Facebook Regrets Aussie News Ban, Caves To Gov’t Regulation

Facebook thought it was the tougher tyrant when it initially banned all Australian news stories from its platform but the OZ government didn’t blink and Mark Zuckerberg quickly regretted trying to muscle the down–under continent to the mat. ⁃ TN Editor

In an extraordinary backflip, Facebook announced Tuesday it will reverse its block on Australian users sharing news on its site and accept proposed government media bargaining laws that force it to pay for content.

The capitulation came after Prime Minister Scott Morrison called Facebook “arrogant,” warning against “Big Tech companies who think they are bigger than governments and that the rules should not apply to them.”

Discussions between Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg have now delivered a result in the government’s favor and stemmed the fierce public backlash against the media giant.

“Mark Zuckerberg said to me today [restoring pages] will occur in coming days,” Frydenberg said, the ABC reports.

Frydenberg added Australia had been a “proxy battle” for the rest of the world on the regulation of Google and Facebook.

“I have no doubt that so many other countries are looking at what is happening here in Australia, because of this innovative code the Morrison government is now pursuing, so Facebook and Google have not hidden the fact that they know that the eyes of the world are on Australia, and that is why they have sought to get a code here that is workable,” he said.

The result was immediately applauded across the Australian media landscape and in government circles:

Facebook initially argued it had been forced to block Australian news in response to the proposed legislation, objecting to having to negotiate and set up a “fairer” negotiation process between the tech giants and news companies over the value of news content.

Morrison very quickly made clear his conservative coaliton government would set the terms and Facebook would have to comply as part of the long-running dispute

Read full story here…