May 29, 2023
If you say something that brain-dead Biden and his gang of neocon controllers don't want you to hear, you will find yourself canceled by the mainstream media. No matter how popular you were before, you will become a non-person. We all know this, but we need to grasp how pervasive this phenomenon is. Content that the forces of evil don't want you to hear is banned.
Gary Barnett gives an outstanding overview on the dangers of censorship and what is going on today: « Current censorship has reached levels not seen in the past, and with all the advanced technology available, this nefarious plot to silence the thinkers and hide the truth could affect all forms of speech. It is getting much more difficult to find truthful information, as those like Google, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and many other venues are eliminating content and access to content at a blistering pace. A day rarely goes by without something I am reading or researching on these sites being taken down or hidden. This can only lead to a world consumed by propaganda alone, thus guaranteeing that only the state narrative will be presented in any mainstream or easily accessible format. This is a dangerous situation, especially considering the likelihood that through vaccination or other methods, much of the population could soon become subject to transhuman experimentation where injectable nanoparticles and chips could be used to alter human behavior.
This is not a new phenomenon, as tyrants throughout human history have censored writing and speech in order to protect their power structure. Power is always troubled by any that dare to think, and any that dare to question. In ancient times and not so ancient times, books were burned to keep the populace from having access to any material that was not acceptable by the throne or by the current political authority. In cases of resistance to ‘high' authority, many were also killed by the state, and in many cases these ‘cleansings' were targeted to the educated class, because they had the capability to think critically and express their ideas publically. Those that held power by force of arms would never allow criticism and dissent, because that could lead to hostility and insurrection by the people. »
But let's get down to specifics. Although the fake covid « vaccines » kill people, you can't say this on YouTube. An article that was published in RT in September 2021 tells the story: « YouTube will ban all ‘harmful vaccine content' from its platform, including claims that vaccines are ineffective at reducing disease transmission. The ban comes after a year of escalating censorship by the Google-owned company.
‘We've steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we're now at a point where it's more important than ever to expand the work we started with Covid-19 to other vaccines,'YouTube said in a blog post on Wednesday.
The new rules prohibit content alleging that vaccines ‘cause chronic side effects,' that they ‘do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease,' and that they contain unlisted ingredients like fetal cells. The rules apply to all currently approved and administered vaccines, and not just Covid-19 shots.
At first glance, the rules are open to interpretation. YouTube's moderators will have to decide, for instance, whether content discussing side effects strays beyond the ‘rare side effects that are recognised by health authorities.'Likewise, multiple studies and real-world data have suggested that Covid-19 vaccines are less effective at preventing transmission and infection than previously thought, and some suggest that this efficacy wanes with time.
And, while YouTube explicitly bans claims that vaccines contain fetal tissue or fetal cell lines, shots for various diseases – including Hepatitis A, Rubella and Chickenpox – are actually manufactured using cell lines started in aborted fetal tissue, but individual doses do not contain any of this tissue.
Content violating these new rules will receive a series of ‘strikes' from YouTube, with three strikes resulting in the termination of the offending channel.
The new policy adds to YouTube's existing ‘Covid-19 medical misinformation policy,' which sets out a wide range of forbidden topics regarding the coronavirus. These include videos ‘encouraging home remedies,' content claiming ‘that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of Covid-19,' and content ‘that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of Covid-19.'
The latter two topics are controversial, as there is no scientific consensus that masks prevent transmission of the virus, and Ivermectin has shown some promise in studies as a treatment for Covid-19.
Nevertheless, YouTube stated on Wednesday that over 130,000 videos have been removed since last year for violating this policy.
Earlier this week, RT's German-language channels (RT DE and Der Fehlende Part) were permanently deleted by YouTube. The company took down the channels after handing out a strike to RT DE over alleged ‘medical misinformation'in four videos. Among these cases of supposed ‘misinformation' was an interview with German epidemiologist Friedrich Puerner, who was critical of his government's methods of battling the pandemic. He, however, was in favor of vaccination and never doubted the Covid-19 pandemic. Starting September 21, RT DE was no longer allowed to upload any videos or conduct live streams on its YouTube channel. RT DE content, albeit not the flagged videos, was shared through another channel, the DFP (also owned by RT in Germany). This, YouTube claimed, was a violation of the strike issued to RT DE and the Google-owned platform took down both channels.
Russian President Vladimir Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, told journalists on Wednesday that the banning amounted to ‘a case of censorship, and of obstructing the dissemination of information by the media,' and would be investigated by Russian media regulators, adding ‘there must be zero tolerance for such violations of the law.' » See this.
Barnett's case is even stronger than he presents it in that he underestimates the effectiveness of Ivermectin, which has turned out to be a wonder drug in treating covid. Ira Katz tells the story: « I hope you have heard about Ivermectin, not only because of its almost miraculous development, efficacy and safety; but also because it could become the ultimate red pill.
First the history of Ivermectin. I quote at length from an important review paper by Dr. Pierre Kory (and others notably Dr. Paul Marik) of Front Line doctors. The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance is the source of the best medical protocols for treating Covid-19.
‘In 1975, Professor Satoshi Omura at the Kitsato institute in Japan isolated an unusual Streptomyces bacterium from the soil near a golf course along the southeast coast of Honshu, Japan. Omura, along with William Campbell, found that the bacterial culture could cure mice infected with the roundworm Heligmosomoides polygyrus. Campbell isolated the active compounds from the bacterial culture, naming them »avermectins« and the bacterium S. avermitilis for the compounds' ability to clear mice of worms. Despite decades of searching around the world, the Japanese microorganism remains the only source of avermectin ever found. Ivermectin, a derivative of avermectin, then proved revolutionary. Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, it soon made historic impacts in human health, improving the nutrition, general health, and well-being of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat onchocerciasis (river blindness) in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, given that it was highly effective, broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated, and could be easily administered. Although it was used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, it was most known as the essential mainstay of 2 global disease elimination campaigns that has nearly eliminated the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases. The unprecedented partnership between Merck & Co. Inc, and the Kitasato Institute combined with the aid of international health care organizations has been recognized by many experts as one of the greatest medical accomplishments of the 20th century. One example was the decision by Merck & Co to donate ivermectin doses to support the Mectizan Donation Program that then provided more than 570 million treatments in its first 20 years alone. Ivermectin's impacts in controlling onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis, diseases which blighted the lives of billions of the poor and disadvantaged throughout the tropics, is why its discoverers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 and the reason for its inclusion on the World Health Organization's (WHO) »List of Essential Medicines.« Furthermore, it has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found.'
This drug not only has been widely used and is prevalent throughout the developing world, but it is very inexpensive! Maybe 1000 times cheaper than Remdesivir.
Thus, it cannot be stated too strongly that Ivermectin may be the greatest drug ever found/discovered and this drug is almost too good to be true for treating Covid-19. Yet given this great news, what has been the response in the developed world? Crickets! But not only that, social media has actively suppressed discussion of this miraculous potential. »
The media censorship isn't confined to covid. The brilliant Ron Unz describes another example of censorship that directly involves brain-dead Biden. « Consider the case of Jonathan Turley, a leading establishmentarian figure who holds the Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. As his 5,000 word Wikipedia entry describes, he has spent decades as one of our most prolific and influential media commentators on legal matters, publishing numerous pieces in the New York Times and the Washington Post while being a regular guest on our broadcast networks. His long career has been entirely mainstream, and there is no sign he has ever explored any of the controversial topics that are the focus of my own research.
But just last week he published an outraged column in The Hill—a very respectable DC outlet—expressing his amazement at the total unwillingness of our media to report the massive evidence of financial corruption engulfing the family of President Joe Biden. His stunned reaction was so forceful that his remarks are worth excerpting at considerable length:
‘This week, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) tried to do the impossible. After he and his colleagues presented a labyrinth of LLC shell companies and accounts used to funnel as much as $10 million to Biden family members, Donalds tried to induce the press to show some interest in the massive corruption scandal. ‘For those in the press, this easy pickings & Pulitzer-level stuff right here,' he pleaded.
The response was virtually immediate. Despite showing nine Biden family members allegedly receiving funds from corrupt figures in Romania, China and other countries, The New Republic quickly ran a story headlined ‘Republicans Finally Admit They Have No Incriminating Evidence on Joe Biden.'
For many of us, it was otherworldly. A decade ago, when then-Vice President Joe Biden was denouncing corruption in Romania and Ukraine and promising action by the United States, massive payments were flowing to his son Hunter Biden and a variety of family members, including Biden grandchildren.
The brilliance of the Biden team was that it invested the media in this scandal at the outset by burying the laptop story as ‘Russian disinformation' before the election. That was, of course, false, but it took two years for most major media outlets to admit that the laptop was authentic.
But the media then ignored what was on that ‘authentic laptop.' Hundreds of emails detailed potentially criminal conduct and raw influence peddling in foreign countries.
When media outlets such as the New York Post confirmed the emails, the media then insisted that there was no corroboration of the influence peddling payments and no clear proof of criminal conduct. It entirely ignored the obvious corruption itself.
Now that the House has released corroboration in actual money transfers linking many in the Biden family, the media is insisting that this is no scandal because there is no direct proof of payments to Joe Biden.
Putting aside that this is only the fourth month of an investigation, the media's demand of a direct payment to President Biden is laughably absurd. The payments were going to his family, but he was the object of the influence peddling.
The House has shown millions of dollars going to at least nine Bidens like dividends from a family business. As a long-time critic of influence peddling among both Republicans and Democrats, I have never seen the equal of the Bidens.
The whole purpose of influence peddling is to use family members as shields for corrupt officials. Instead of making a direct payment to a politician, which could be seen as a bribe, you can give millions to his or her spouse or children.
Moreover, these emails include references to Joe Biden getting a 10 percent cut of one Chinese deal. It also shows Biden associates warning not to use Joe Biden's name but to employ code names like ‘the Big Guy.' At the same time, the president and the first lady are referenced as benefiting from offices and receiving payments from Hunter.
Indeed, Hunter complains that his father is taking half of everything that he is raking in.
None of that matters. The New York Times ran a piece headlined, ‘House Republican Report Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by President Biden.' That is putting aside evidence against all the family members around Joe Biden. It also ignored that other evidence clearly shows Biden lied about his family not receiving Chinese funds or that he never had any knowledge of his son's business dealings.
In discussing modern Russian propaganda, researchers at the Rand Corporation described it as having ‘two distinctive features: high numbers of channels and messages and a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions.'
Today we are seeing a much more dangerous phenomenon. The coverage this week has all the markings of a state media. The consistent spin. The almost universal lack of details. The absurd distinctions.
It is the blindside of our First Amendment, which addresses the classic use of state authority to coerce and control media. It does not address a circumstance in which most of the media will maintain an official line by consent rather than coercion.
The media simply fails to see the story. Of course, it can always look to the president for enlightenment. Just before his son received a massive transfer of money from one of the most corrupt figures in Romania, Biden explained to that country why corruption must remain everyone's focus. ‘Corruption is a cancer, a cancer that eats away at a citizen's faith in democracy,' he said. ‘Corruption is just another form of tyranny.'
It is just a shame that no one wants to cover it.'
If our journalists are unwilling to report the most blatant evidence of corruption surrounding our President, is there any chance they would be willing to consider the far more controversial topics I have covered in my series? And prior to the existence of the Internet, how many individuals would have even become aware of these facts or Turley's accusations? »
Let's do everything we can to end media censorship. We try to get the truth out on LRC, and with your support, we will defeat the forces of evil.