Home » Posts tagged 'censorship'
Tag Archives: censorship
Social Security fund to go into the red in 2020; will be completely bankrupt by 2035… governments will desperately find a way to kill off populations around the world
Social Security fund to go into the red in 2020; will be completely bankrupt by 2035… governments will desperately find a way to kill off populations around the world
(Natural News) According to the 2019 annual report published by the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees, the Social Security fund will go in the red in 2020 and could potentially go bankrupt by 2035. If nothing is done to boost revenue or re-configure how the money will be distributed, then countless retirees, disabled persons, widows, and surviving children will be left with little to no funds to help them navigate through the most uncertain times in life.
The sad part about this shortage is that Social Security is not welfare; this trust fund is not dependent on tax money. Workers pay into the Social Security system during their working years. The system acts as an insurance once a person retires. The benefits are also paid out to disabled persons, widows, and dependents of deceased parents.
Due to the projected shortages, the U.S. government has a perfect opportunity to begin culling the population over the next three decades, restricting what is paid out through the Social Security safety net. As school textbooks teach children about the problem of “overpopulation,” the government obviously views humanity as a liability.
Social Security may not survive long past its 100th birthday
The Social Security program has been in place for 84 years and has collected approximately $21.9 trillion. In that time, the program has paid out roughly $19 trillion. The program currently has a reserve of about $2.9 trillion, which is divided among two trust funds. In 2020, the amount being paid out will supersede the amount coming in, forcing the program to dig into its reserves. With the trend continuing over the next decade, social security reserves will be dried up by 2035, drastically impacting vulnerable subsets of the population.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
It’s official: the collapse of the mainstream media’s credibility is now complete
It’s official: the collapse of the mainstream media’s credibility is now complete
(Natural News) Attorney General William Barr held a press conference this morning to address the contents of the Mueller report, just as he promised to do. Not long after, Barr delivered the full Mueller report to the public with necessary redactions, also as promised. And yet the mainstream media, which demanded all of these things and has now received them, still isn’t happy.
In fact, most fake news media pundits are now foaming at the mouth, questioning Barr’s loyalties and accusing him of colluding with President Donald Trump to convey the “spun” message that he’s innocent – which it would seem as though no amount of evidence will ever convince those with Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is actually true.
In a nutshell, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whom Leftist Democrats have been hailing for the past two years as their savior and hero who was going to take down Trump, didn’t end up procuring what these Trump haters were wishfully thinking he would. And in response, Trump haters everywhere are reeling with more anger than ever, demanding that Mueller be burned at the stake for failing to prove their deranged conspiracy theories.
CNN White House Correspondent Jim Acosta about had a coronary in response to Barr’s press conference, accusing Barr of “clearly laying out a sympathetic presentation” of what’s supposedly in the Mueller report. Twenty-twenty presidential hopeful and Leftist Democrat Cory Booker similarly accused Barr of “undermining the independence of this entire process” for his speaking publicly about the Mueller report prior to releasing it.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Leaked memos prove Google is a massive criminal enterprise engaged in felony election meddling and racketeering
Leaked memos prove Google is a massive criminal enterprise engaged in felony election meddling and racketeering
(Natural News) A bombshell series of leaked internal memos from Google reveals that the search engine is engaged in a massive criminal enterprise that may be prosecuted for engaging in “criminal racketeering.” The Daily Caller has acquired these internal memos which describe the manual process whereby Google selectively de-lists news websites that focus on conservative content, natural health and vaccine awareness information, among other topics. Once websites are targeted by Google for being blacklisted, virtually none of their pages appear in any search results whatsoever. (Natural News was almost completely blacklisted beginning in June of 2017.)
“Google does manipulate its search results manually, contrary to the company’s official denials, documents obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller indicate,” reports The Daily Caller. The DC describes Google’s ultra-secret “XPA news blacklist” being maintained by “Google’s Trust & Safety team,” which carries out the politically-motivated censorship and blacklisting actions to silence news sites that Google wants to suppress.
These memos reveal a shocking criminal enterprise being run inside Google, carrying out felony election meddling crimes and actions that qualify as “racketeering” under the RICO Act. Named as co-conspirators in this criminal enterprise are some of Google’s top engineers, including Paul Haahr (@haahr on Twitter) and Pandu Nayak.
Paul Haahr is explicitly responsible for censoring Natural News and other natural health websites, as he heads up the censorship efforts to target so-called “science / medical denial” and “conspiracy theories.” Ironically, Paul Haahr it himself carrying out a conspiracy to silence the truth about medicine, vaccines, cancer cures and natural health, yet part of his job is to censor “conspiracy theories.” Perhaps he tells himself, “There are no conspiracies… except the ones I’m running!”
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
The Case Against the CIA’s Censors
The Case Against the CIA’s Censors
Carol M. Highsmith • Public domain
I have joined in a lawsuit with four former federal employees to end the government’s censorship of our writings on national security issues. The current publications review system of our military and intelligence agencies is dysfunctional, inhibiting our ability to participate in national security debates. The government has a legitimate interest in protecting bona fide secrets, but the review system is opaque, exceeding legitimate national security boundaries and compromising free speech.
Former CIA director Michael Hayden has acknowledged the problem, stating that “although the public cannot be briefed on everything, there has to be enough out there so that the majority of the population believes what they [i.e., intelligence agencies] are doing is acceptable.”
My experience with the Central Intelligence Agency’s review system exemplifies the obstacles that keep legitimate information from policymakers and the public. In last year’s congressional discussions of the confirmation for CIA director Gina Haspel, senior agency officials such as former acting director Mike Morell were permitted to defend her role in the unconscionable practice of torture and abuse in secret prisons during the War on Terror. The CIA’s publications review board, however, redacted my writings describing her extensive role in these activities. Her involvement was effectively covered up! For a forthcoming book, the reviewers ordered me to remove a reference to an article in the New York Times that referred to these activities because they claimed the “title” of that article was classified.
My last book, Whistleblower at the CIA, was critical of the CIA’s politicization of intelligence in the 1980s as well as in the run up to the Iraq War in 2003. The book was held up for 11 months, violating the 30-day time period for review that was part of my original agreement with the CIA; that time frame was affirmed in a 1972 circuit court decision.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
After Pressure on Twitter, Christine Assange’s Account is Restored; Venezuela’s Telesur Now Hit
After Pressure on Twitter, Christine Assange’s Account is Restored; Venezuela’s Telesur Now Hit
UPDATED: The Twitter account of Julian Assange’s mother was restored on Wednesday night after her supporters sent a flood of messages to Twitter.
Telesur English Hit By Same Restrictions
Christine Assange, the mother of WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange, had her Twitter account restored more than 24 hours after it was abruptly restricted by the social media company.
Hundreds of tweets were sent to the San Francisco-based company by supporters demanding that she regain access to her account.
Ms. Assange tweeted at 10:33 p.m. U.S. Eastern time on Wednesday: “Back on deck! Many thanks to everyone contacting @Twitter on my behalf. Thanks to @Twitter for responding with a reconnect.”
Ms. Assange told Consortium News by phone that she has had no contact with Twitter and still does not know why her account was restricted and precisely why it was restored. She was unable to post new Tweets or read anyone else’s while the restriction was in place.
Outrage at the restriction was expressed by many Assange supporters in tweets to Twitter and its CEO, Jack Dorsey.
Another supporter wrote: “The only unusual activity is not seeing a mother fight for her child. It’s unnatural and cowardly to think that her tweets are unusual.”
On Thursday, @TelesurEnglish, the Venezuelan state broadcaster’s English service, was hit with the same restrictions by Twitter as had Ms. Assange, who tweeted a complaint about it:
Censorship Tightens As Governments Lose Control
Censorship Tightens As Governments Lose Control
Governments have lost control of the narrative that they are in control of events. Everyday I wake up to another instance of outrageous censorship from some ‘social media’ company blocking or banning someone for no apparent reason.
The latest outrage is Twitter banning the account of Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange’s mother, Christine.
Australian and New Zealand ISPs have gone bonkers IP blocking sites in the wake of the Christchurch massacre. Sites like Zerohedge have been targeted in the past two weeks for publishing narratives orthogonal to what the governments in the West are comfortable with people consuming.
First it was Facebook, blocking and then unblocking Zerohedge with no apparent reasoning behind it. Now its ISP’s over-reacting to an emotional event ensuring that a good crisis never goes to waste.
And these ISPs are going much farther than just avoiding any potential legal liabilities. They are now openly calling for the platforms themselves — Twitter, Facebook, etc. — be regulated by governments to stop ‘dangerous information’ from reaching the eyeballs of consumers.
And another mask is ripped off revealing the ugly totalitarians underneath.
It begins with legitimizing de-platforming people like Alex Jones and social media companies like Gab. Because some speech is too free. These are people supposedly too fringe to be suffered.
So it’s easy to whip up some public support for censorship of them alongside a one-sided media bombardment of justify their silencing to a large swath of people.
Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been…?
It’s especially easy to do this after having whipped everyone up into two camps of highly polarized and radicalized camps across multiple political vectors.
Trump vs. Liberals in the U.S.
Remainers vs. Leavers in the U.K.
Open borders vs. Immigration control across the West
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Facebook just suspended Natural News for 7 days for posting this rather ho-hum fluoride infographic
Facebook just suspended Natural News for 7 days for posting this rather ho-hum fluoride infographic
(Natural News) The insanity of the tech giants’ censorship continues to expand by the day. With Twitter having permanently banned the Health Ranger account several weeks ago (@HealthRanger) after I criticized Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for his involvement in a shady crypto scheme, Facebook has now decided to suspend Natural News for seven days for posting the educational fluoride infographic you see below.
Entitled, “Fluoride… Did You Know?” the educational infographic presents fact-based historical information about fluoride, such as the fact that Crest toothpaste introduced fluoride into its products in 1955. Overall, it’s a rather ho-hum infographic and doesn’t even stand out as sensational in any way at all.
Now, when Natural News attempts to post anything on Facebook, we are greeted with this message that claims we violated “Facebook community standards.” (Apparently, Facebook community standards don’t allow teaching people to avoid toxic chemicals such as fluoride.)
Here’s the full infographic that earned the 7-day suspension from Facebook. As you view this, remind yourself that this is exactly the kind of information Facebook and the other tech giants have determined you are not allowed to see.
As Facebook now demonstrates on a daily basis, we are all living in the era of techno-fascism. Next, the tech giants are going to start banning all posts about nutrition and anti-cancer foods. (Trust me, that’s coming any day now…)
Watch my commentary video to understand more, and visit Brighteon.com for even more uncensored videos that dare to tell the truth about everything:
Learn more truth about fluoride and water contamination at Fluoride.news.
Twitter Restricts Account of Julian Assange’s Mother
Twitter Restricts Account of Julian Assange’s Mother
The social media giant has given no reason to Christine Assange who had turned to Twitter to campaign for the liberty of her son.
The Twitter account of Christine Assange, the mother of the arbitrarily detained founder of WikiLeaks, has been restricted, she told Consortium News on Tuesday.
“My Twitter account has been ‘blocked due to ‘unusual activity,’” Ms. Assange wrote in a text message. Twitter, however, has provided her no reason for its action.
Ms. Assange is a prolific user of Twitter in her campaign to free her son who has been a refugee in the Ecuador embassy in London since 2012.
Twitter has posted the following message on her page:
While a user can access her page by agreeing to view her profile, Ms. Assange told Consortium News she is unable to post new Tweets to her account.
Her last post, at 11:55 am on Tuesday in Australia, where she lives, is a retweet of an article published about her son. She posted 12 tweets in the past 24 hours. “Interesting that it followed on from a day of my tweets about free speech and calling on journalists globally to stand up for Julian,” Ms. Assange said in a text message.
Clinton and Bolton
In the past ten days, Ms. Assange tweeted direct replies to Hillary Clinton and John Bolton, the U.S. national security adviser. Bolton had tweeted on March 9: “US military should use #Wikileaks for cyber warfare target practice. Take down their capabilities & prevent further harm to nat’l security.”
Ms. Assange’s reply to Bolton is no longer visible under his tweet. Nine replies to Bolton are now “unavailable.” Ms. Assange said in a text message that her reply began by calling Bolton’s tweet, “Fascist talk.”
Christine Assange with Ecuador chancellor Ricardo Patiño in Quito, July 30, 2012. (Flickr)
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
A Tide In The Affairs Of Men
A Tide In The Affairs Of Men
Sometimes we find ourselves merely pondering, not so much solving big problems. Is there playing out, in the world at large, or at least the world of men, something akin to the Kondratieff cycle in economics, a larger cycle, a force, a tide, an energy, that we mostly ignore, but which drives our ‘affairs’? Dr. D. thinks there may well be. But if so, what happens to free will?
Dr. D.:
Dr. D.: I seem to have taken a dark and grumpy turn lately. Probably the winter, but as I get older, I find the present state of the world more and more frustrating.
I fear with the present madness it’s just de rigor to 1) label people as something they’re not, even the OPPOSITE of what they are, 2) furiously fight that strawman and 3) not care. I have no explanation for it, but there are times and tides in the affairs of men (as Shakespeare would say) which flood you out and cost a fortune. …Or something like that.
And it’s certainly flooding in Europe right now, as darkness falls as the shutters of censorship and totalitarianism are bolted up everywhere, every bit as clear and methodical as was done in 1935, even with a call for a shiny new army. …To use on no one, of course, because we all know broke nations fund and create armies for no ill intent whatsoever. But these things happen regularly.
“If…any person had told me that there would have been such [chaos] as [now] exists, I would have thought them a bedlamite, a fit subject for a madhouse.”
– George Washington, 1786 (after a fiat money blowoff in the states)
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Twitter Admits Shadowbanning Lisa Page Tweet By Federalist Co-Founder “To Keep People Safe”
Twitter Admits Shadowbanning Lisa Page Tweet By Federalist Co-Founder “To Keep People Safe”
Twitter has admitted to shadowbanning a tweet by The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis in order to “keep people safe.”
Tweeting a passage last week from former FBI attorney Lisa Page’s Congressional testimony discussing the FBI’s rush to find connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, Davis pointed out the irony of Hillary Clinton’s campaign employing former UK spy Christopher Steele, a foreign national, “working with Russians to obtain damaging information about Donald Trump.”
Of note, the dossier Steele compiled which was subsequently used to obtain a warrant to spy on a Trump adviser (and later smear Trump) relied on a “senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin,” according to Vanity Fair.
Following his March 12 tweet, Davis wondered if Twitter was experimenting with “shadow bans” – as he could only see his tweet if he was logged in, meaning nobody else could see it.
Is @Twitter experimenting with shadow bans by deleting tweets so others can’t see them, but keeping them visible to you while you’re logged in? I had to re-publish my original Lisa Page transcript tweet because it was disappeared to everyone but me.
Six days later, Twitter confirmed with Davis that they had deliberately shadow-banned his tweet in order to “keep people safe.”
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Social Media Companies “Struggle” to Help Censors Keep us in the Dark
Social Media Companies “Struggle” to Help Censors Keep us in the Dark
According to CNN Business, “Facebook, YouTube and Twitter struggle to deal with New Zealand shooting video.”
“Deal with” is code for “censor on demand by governments and activist organizations who oppose public access to information that hasn’t first been thoroughly vetted for conformity to their preferred narrative.”
Do you really need to see first-person video footage of an attacker murdering 49 worshipers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand?
Maybe not. Chances are pretty good you didn’t even want to. I suspect that many of us who did (I viewed what appeared to be a partial copy before YouTube deleted it) would rather we could un-see it.
But whether or not we watch it should be up to us, not those governments and activists. Social media companies should enable our choices, not suppress our choices at the censors’ every whim.
If Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube had been primary news sources in 1915, would they have permitted us to view footage (rare, as film was in its early days) of New Zealanders’ desperate fight at Gallipoli?
How about the attack on Pearl Harbor?
The assassination of president John F. Kennedy?
The second plane hitting the World Trade Center.
Lucinda Creighton of the Counter Extremism Project complains to CNN that the big social media firms aren’t really “cooperating and acting in the best interest of citizens to remove this content.”
The CEP claims that it “counter[s] the narrative of extremists” and works to “reveal the extremist threat.” How does demanding that something be kept hidden “counter” or “reveal” it? How is it in “the best of interest of citizens” to only let those citizens see what Lucinda Creighton thinks they should be allowed to see?
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
YouTube Will Determine What ‘Conspiracy’ Is and Stop Recommending Such Videos
YouTube Will Determine What ‘Conspiracy’ Is and Stop Recommending Such Videos
While the evolution of Google’s YouTube from a free expression platform into something entirely different has been underway for a while, it just took another step in a very short-sighted and restrictive direction. NBC News reports:
YouTube has announced that it will no longer recommend videos that “come close to” violating its community guidelines, such as conspiracy or medically inaccurate videos…Chaslot said that YouTube’s fix to its recommendations AI will have to include getting people to videos with truthful information and overhauling the current system it uses to recommend videos.
There’s a lot to unpack here so let’s get started. First, it appears YouTube has announced the creation of a new bucket when it comes to content uploaded to the site. It’s no longer just videos consistent with company guidelines and those that aren’t, but there’s now a category for “conspiracy or medically inaccurate videos.” This is a massive responsibility, which neither YouTube or anyone else seems fit to be judge and jury. In other words, YouTube is saying it’s comfortable deciding what is “conspiracy” and what isn’t. Which brings up a really important question.
So no videos of government officials lying the public into wars, or is that the Silicon Valley approved type conspiracy?✔https://
“Conspiracy” and covering up conspiracies is a fundamental part of the human experience, and always has been. It demonstrates extreme hubris for a tech giant to claim it can differentiate between a legitimate conspiracy to explore, versus an illegitimate one. One person’s righteous investigation is another’s conspiracy theory, with Russiagate serving as an obvious contemporary example.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
EU: Going Full Orwell
EU: Going Full Orwell
- The problem is that this professedly noble initiative comes from an organization that has already for several years been censoring free speech in Europe.
- The handbook guidelines state that journalists should “Take care not to further stigmatize terms such as ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’ by associating them with particular acts… Don’t allow extremists’ claims about acting ‘in the name of Islam’ to stand unchallenged. Highlight… the diversity of Muslim communities… where it is necessary and newsworthy to report hateful comments against Muslims, mediate the information.” In other words, the guidelines ask journalists to disinform the public.
- This is the same European Commission that most recently expressed its disapproval of the withdrawal of Austria from the UN’s “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.” The Compact stipulates that media outlets that do not support the UN’s migration agenda will not be eligible for public funding. How is that for “fully respecting Europe’s fundamental principles of freedom of expression, a free press and pluralism”?
The EU has launched a comprehensive Action Plan against Disinformation. Its purpose, according to a recent press release from the European Commission, is apparently to “protect its democratic systems and public debates and in view of the 2019 European elections as well as a number of national and local elections that will be held in Member States by 2020”.
In June 2018, leaders of EU member states had met in the European Council and invited the European Commission “to present… an action plan by December 2018 with specific proposals for a coordinated EU response to the challenge of disinformation…” It is this action plan that the Commission presented to the public on December 5.
The Action Plan focuses on four areas:
- Improved detection of disinformation (the European Commission dedicated 5 million euros toward this project and seemingly expects Member states to contribute on a national level, as well).
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Why the War on Conspiracy Theories Is Bad Public Policy
Why the War on Conspiracy Theories Is Bad Public Policy
A Review of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein (based on an earlier paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule); In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Businessby Charlan Nemeth; and Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski
On January 25 2018 YouTube unleashed the latest salvo in the war on conspiracy theories, saying “we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”
At first glance that sounds reasonable. Nobody wants YouTube or anyone else to recommend bad information. And almost everyone agrees that phony miracle cures, flat earthism, and blatantly false claims about 9/11 and other historical events are undesirable.
But if we stop and seriously consider those words, we notice a couple of problems. First, the word “recommend” is not just misleading but mendacious. YouTube obviously doesn’t really recommend anything. When it says it does, it is lying.
When you watch YouTube videos, the YouTube search engine algorithm displays links to other videos that you are likely to be interested in. These obviously do not constitute “recommendations” by YouTube itself, which exercises no editorial oversight over content posted by users. (Or at least it didn’t until it joined the war on conspiracy theories.)
The second and larger problem is that while there may be near-universal agreement among reasonable people that flat-earthism is wrong, there is only modest agreement regarding which health approaches constitute “phony miracle cures” and which do not. Far less is there any agreement on “claims about 9/11 and other historical events.”
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
How Russia-gate Rationalized Censorship
How Russia-gate Rationalized Censorship
At the end of October 2017, I wrote an article for Consortium News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election on the orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Gage Skidmore)
The piece showed that the Democrats’ two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele’s largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.
And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC’s computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian “hack.” In a similar examination using the same software of an alleged hack of a Ukrainian artillery app, CrowdStrike also blamed Russia but used faulty data for its report that it was later forced to rewrite. CrowdStrike was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.
My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear — especially in academia, journalism and civil rights organizations — about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia’s alleged guilt.
After the article appeared at Consortium News, I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the article on the HuffPost, which was rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006, I was trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost editors retracted the article without any explanation.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
