Is it appropriate for taxpayer funded ivory tower law professors to lecture us about the need to hold reality-based taxpayers in check?
The Atlantic has published an article authored by two university professors titled “Internet Speech Will Never Go Back to Normal”, subtitled “In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the U.S. was wrong.”
The article is actually worth reading in full, not just because it’s outrage porn for anyone who values human communication that is unregulated by oligarchs and government agencies, but because it’s actually packed full of extensively sourced information about the way Silicon Valley tech giants are collaborating with western governments to censor speech. The only difference between this article and something you might read on some libertarian website is that this article argues that all of these regulations on speech are a good thing.
Here’s an archive of the article if you don’t want to give clicks to The Atlantic, whose editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg once assured the world that “the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.” Do give it a look if this interests you and you have time.
Fmr. Bush admin lawyer/current Harvard Law prof Jack Goldsmith goes full-Thomas Friedman, credits China's enlightened authoritarian approach to information as "largely right" and laments the US' provincial fealty to the First Amendment as "largely wrong." https://t.co/1WyQtgE8bK pic.twitter.com/1M03ybxh0I
— Anthony L. Fisher (@anthonyLfisher) April 26, 2020
“In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong,” argue the article’s authors, one of whom is a former Bush administration lawyer. “Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.”
The article paints an accurate picture of the ways in which supposedly independent social media platforms have been collaborating with governments and with each other to regulate speech and have increased that collaboration during the Covid-19 pandemic, noting how “In March 2019, Zuckerberg invited the government to regulate ‘harmful content’ on his platform” and how “As in other contexts, Facebook relies on fact-checking organizations and ‘authorities’ (from the World Health Organization to the governments of U.S. states) to ascertain which content to downgrade or remove.”
“These platforms have engaged in ‘strategic collaboration‘ with the federal government, including by sharing information, to fight foreign electoral interference,” The Atlantic reports after outlining ways in which Facebook, Twitter and Youtube have been censoring speech in “aggressive but still imperfect steps to fend off foreign adversaries.”
Ted Gunderson Report on the Finders
It is a paraphrase, of course, of the inimitable Dame Rebecca West, advanced with unshakable confidence that she would have heartily approved if she were alive today.
The Corona virus put-on job has now been exposed for the brazen social engineering scheme, potential vaccination rip-off (and here), and ideologically driven mass population reduction project that it had always been, from the start.
We now have all the basic facts we require to deconstruct the mendacious, hysteria inducing narrative that was concocted to bludgeon the imprisoned world into submissive acquiescence to its self-destruction.
The key fact that the Covid-19 virus is a laboratory product and therefore man-made was authoritatively established by French Prof. Luc Montagnier who recently disclosed the results of his laboratory analysis of the virus genome. He found it to be laced with spliced-in HIV sequences, which effectively excludes the possibility of its being the product of a natural process. (Prof. Montaigner put it extremely delicately: “in fact, part of the virus, not the whole, has been manipulated”.) Was it manipulated by bats in some Chinese caves? Prof. Montaigner, incidentally, is eminently qualified to speak on the subject as he was in 2008 a recipient of the Nobel Prize in medicine for identifying the HIV virus. The fact that as soon as he let the cat out of the bag he became subjected to harsh denunciation (here and here) by all the right circles lends powerful support to the credibility of his findings.
Essentially the same conclusions were reached even earlier, in February, by a group of Indian scientists and published in a paper entitled “Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HI,V-1 gp120 and Gag”. Reassuringly, under ferocious pressure and ridicule by fake news commissars (and here), the scientists were compelled to withdraw their bold paper, because it appeared to have crossed the line of permissible Corona virus discourse even before Prof. Montaigner came out with his assertions. All the more reason to pay serious attention to the glaringly obvious and undeniably significant implications of these fully congruent findings.
Underlining the fact that we have been plunged, without consent and mostly without awareness, into a post-truth world, facts have largely been supplanted by narratives. And narratives are essentially politically convenient fairy tales that nobody sincerely believes but practically everyone must publicly adhere to in order to hold on to what little reputation and dwindling benefits they’ve got left. Team player adherence to public lies (sorry, fairy tales) is a test of good global citizenship. It is a test that to their moral credit the French professor and the Indian researchers have obviously and perhaps to their lasting professional detriment – failed.
Fortunately, the ranks of non-team players in the Corona virus controversy, with all the lurking personal perils that poses, have actually been growing, rather than shrinking.
“But the other aspect, which is completely blacked out and censored from the corporate-controlled mainstream media here in the West, is that this crisis is a lesson to the entire world that we need to address the problem of biological weapons. This may or may not be a deliberate biological weapon attack; it may or may not be an accidental release of a biological weapon. There are strong arguments for both possibilities…”
Anyone defending the Bill Gates/WHO global vaccine program needs to explain this study: Mogensen et al 2017. Prior to 2017, neither HHS nor WHO ever performed the kind of vaccinated/unvaccinated (or placebo) study necessary to ascertain if the DTP vaccine actually yields beneficial health outcomes. The DTP vaccine was discontinued in the US and western nations in the 1990s following thousands of reports of death and brain damage.
But Bill Gates and his surrogates, GAVI and WHO, made DTP a priority for African babies. The Danish government and Novo Nordisk Foundation commissioned this study by a team of the world’s leading experts on African vaccination. The two most prominent names, Drs. Soren Mogensen and Peter Aaby, are both vocal vaccine supporters. They were shocked when they examined years of data from a so called “natural experiment” in Guinea Bissau where 50% of children die before age five. In that west African nation, half the children were vaccinated with the DTP vaccine at three months and the other half at six months. Dr. Mogenson and his team found that girls vaccinated with the DTP vaccine died at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated kids. While the vaccinated children were protected from Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis, they were far more susceptible to other deadly diseases than unvaccinated peers. The vaccine apparently compromised their immune systems. Thanks to Gates, DTP is the world’s most popular vaccine.
For African nations, GAVI and WHO use DTP vaccine uptake to gauge national compliance with vaccine recommendations. GAVI can financially punish nations that don’t fully comply. The researchers suggested that the DTP vaccine is killing more children than the diseases it targets. It’s possible that millions of children are adversely affected. Although the New York Times and other Gates boosters will accuse me of promoting “vaccine misinformation”, this is a peer reviewed publication in a respected journal by the world’s most authoritative vaccine scientists describing catastrophic outcomes.
Shouldn’t we be scrutinizing Bill Gates’ record in Africa before we let him dictate which medicines we need to take? By muzzling legitimate criticism as “anti-vax”, the media avoids honest debate on many damning studies like Mogensen.