Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:06 pm

.

Another 'essay' that can be inserted within several threads.

https://runesoup.com/2021/02/how-to-shi ... nes-fools/


This is from Charles’s To Reason With A Madman:
https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/to ... -a-madman/

In a functioning democracy, the two sides could argue the question of whether the election was stolen by drawing evidence from mutually acceptable sources of fact. Today no such source exists. Most of the media has constellated into separate and mutually exclusive ecosystems, each the domain of a political faction, making it impossible to have a debate. All that’s left, as you may have experienced, is a shouting match. Without debate, one must resort to other means to achieve victory in politics: force rather than persuasion.

This is one reason why I think democracy is over. (Whether we ever had it, or how much of it, is another question.)

Suppose I wanted to persuade a far right Trump-supporting reader that claims of election fraud are baseless. I could cite reports and fact-checks on CNN or the New York Times or Wikipedia, but none of those are credible to that person, who assumes, with quite some justification, that these publications are biased against Trump. The same is true if you are a Biden supporter and I try to persuade you of massive election fraud. Evidence for that is only to be found in right-wing publications that you will dismiss out of hand as unreliable.

Let me save the indignant reader some time and write your scathing critique of the above for you. “Charles, you are establishing a false equivalency here that is shockingly ignorant of certain indisputable facts. Fact one! Fact two! Fact three! Here are the links. You are doing a disservice to the public by even broaching the possibility that the other side is worth listening to.”

When even one side believes that, we are no longer in a democracy. My point here isn’t to hold both sides equal. My point is that no conversation is happening, or can happen. We are past democracy now. Democracy depends on a certain level of civic trust, a willingness to decide the disposition of power through peaceful, fair elections informed by an objective press. It requires a willingness to engage in conversation or at least debate. It requires that a substantial majority hold something – democracy itself – to be more important than victory. Otherwise we are in a state either of civil war or, if one side is dominant, a state of authoritarianism and rebellion.

At this point it is clear which side has the upper hand.


...As I’ve been saying for years, this is simply what happens now. We are at that point in the timeline. And that sentiment is in the air, especially for cycle realists.

...

So where do you think we are in the cycle? Do you think we are a few more online yelling matches away from a return to neoliberal normalcy? That the mechanisms of empire you are complicit in and ignore so you can pretend to be a good person whir back into action and all those brave heroes who saved civilisation by watching Netflix and scolding the working class for a year will have Chelsea Handler personally pull them onto streets that ring with the glorious sounds of SNL audience laughter (?), while the smell of vegan cronuts lingers joyously in the air and multi-ethnic fiestas erupt around every correct-thinking white person? (Good luck with those tomatoes, babes.)

Or do you think we are past the point where discourse -of any kind- is not only useless but actively accelerating the moment? Let me say it again. What if the way we respond to the crisis is part of the crisis? Back to Charles:

As a writer who has for the last twenty years upheld countercultural views on many issues, I face a dilemma. The evidence I can cite to buttress my views is fading from the knowledge commons. The sources I might use to undermine dominant narratives are illegitimate precisely because they undermine dominant narratives. The guardians of the internet enforce this illegitimacy through a million means: algorithmic suppression, tendentious search term autofill, demonetizing dissident channels, flagging dissenting views as “false,” canceling accounts, censoring citizen journalists, and so on.

The resulting epistemic bubble leaves the average citizen just as much in unreality as someone who believes Trump is still President. The cult-like character of QAnon and the far right is plain to see. What is less obvious (especially to those within it) is the increasingly cult-like character of the mainstream. What else can we call it but a cult, when it controls information, punishes dissent, spies on its members and controls their physical movements, lacks transparency and accountability in leadership, prescribes what its members should say, think, and feel, encourages them to denounce and spy on each other, and upholds a polarized us-versus-them mentality? I am certainly not saying that everything the mainstream media, science, and academia say is wrong. However, when powerful interests control information they can lock reality out of the picture and bring the public to believe absurdities.

Perhaps that is what culture does generally. “Culture” comes from the same linguistic root as “cult.” It generates a shared reality, by conditioning perception, patterning belief, and directing creation. What is different today is that entrenched forces are desperately trying to maintain a reality that no longer fits the consciousness of the public, which is rapidly moving out of the Age of Separation. The proliferation of cults and conspiracy theories mirrors the increasingly unhinged absurdity of official reality and the lies and propaganda that maintain it.


We are past the moment of discursive intervention because any deviation from the corporate-state narrative -which was the business of magic and witchcraft for one and a half thousand years of European history- is now deemed to be an act of terrorism. That is what Charles is saying in the last line.


Recently as a writer I have had the feeling of trying to reason a madman out of his madness. If you’ve ever tried to reason with a QAnon, you know what I’m talking about as I try to reason with the public mind. I don’t mean to uphold myself as the one sane individual in a world gone mad (thereby demonstrating my own insanity), but rather to speak to a sense I’m sure many readers share: that the world has gone crazy. That our society has spun off into unreality, lost itself in an illusion. Hope as we might to assign the madness to a small and deplorable subset of society, it is in fact a general condition.

As a society, we are asked to accept the unacceptable: the wars, the prisons, the deliberate famine in Yemen, the evictions, the land grabs, the domestic abuse, the racial violence, the child abuse, the ripoffs, the confinement meat factories, the soil destruction, the ecocide, the beheadings, the torture, the rape, the extreme inequality, the persecution of whistleblowers…. On some level, we are all aware that it is crazy to proceed with life as if all this were not happening. To live as if reality were not real – that is the essence of insanity.

Also pushed to the margins of official reality is much of the wonderful healing and creative power of human beings and other-than-human beings. Ironically, if I bring up some examples of these extraordinary technologies, for example in the areas of medicine, agriculture, or energy, I invite accusations of being “unrealistic.” I wonder if the reader, like I do, has direct experience of phenomena that are not officially real?

I am much tempted to try to make the case the modern society is confined to a narrow unreality, but this is precisely the problem. Any examples I invoke from beyond acceptable political, medical, scientific, or psychological (un)reality automatically discredit my argument and make me a suspect character to anyone who does not already agree with me.


For several years now and more acutely since about May of last year, I have been talking about the complete epistemic failure of western civilisation. ...Rockefeller medicine has failed epistemologically. Politics has failed epistemologically. Finance has failed epistemologically. Until people realise that for themselves -and it might be bitcoin at $50K, it might be the walls around the Capitol, it might be double-masking, it might be the patently false dietary advice we all receive- then they are Charles’s madmen.

But there will come a moment when we move from a world of madmen to a world of men pretending to be mad. This has been obvious to me for a while and was recently the source of some financially-motivated bad faith attacks and the usual neoliberal histrionics anyone still using social media has come to expect. Which proved the exact point I was making. (But good luck with those tomatoes, everyone.)

And, lo. Charles is there too.

The more successful they are in controlling reality, the more unreal it becomes, until we reach the extreme where everyone pretends to believe but no one really does. We are not there yet, but we are fast approaching it. We are not yet at the state of late Soviet Russia, when virtually no one took Pravda and Izvestia at face value. The unreality of official reality is not yet so complete, nor is the censorship of unofficial realities. We are still at the stage of repressed alienation, where many harbor a vague sense of living in a VR matrix, a show, a pantomime. What is repressed tends to come out in extreme and distorted form; for example, conspiracy theories that the earth is flat, that the earth is hollow, that Chinese troops are massing on the US border, that the world is run by baby-eating Satanists, and so on. Such beliefs are symptoms of locking people in a matrix of lies and telling them it is real. The more tightly the authorities control information in an attempt to preserve official reality, the more virulent and widespread the conspiracy theories will become. Already, the canon of “authoritative sources” is shrinking to the point where US foreign policy critics, Israeli/Palestinian peace activists, vaccine skeptics, holistic health researchers, and ordinary dissidents like myself risk exile to the same internet ghettos as full-bore conspiracy theorists. Indeed, to a large extent we dine at the same table. What choice is there, when mainstream journalism is derelict in its duty to vigorously challenge power, than to draw from citizen journalists, independent researchers, and anecdotal sources to make sense of the world?

...

I have been writing for nearly 20 years about the defining mythology of civilization that I call the Story of Separation and its consequences: the Program of Control, the mindset of reductionism, the war on the Other, the polarization of society. Obviously, my essays and books have not redeemed my naive ambition to prevent the very circumstances we face today. I must confess to weariness. I am tired of explaining phenomena like Brexit, the Trump election, QAnon, and the Capitol riot as symptoms of a much deeper malady than mere racism or cultism or stupidity or insanity. I know how to write that essay. I would expose hidden assumptions various sides share and the questions few are asking. I would propose how the tools of peace and compassion might reveal the underlying causes of the affair. I would preempt accusations of false equivalency, both-sidesism, and spiritual bypassing by describing how compassion enables us to transcend the endless war on the symptom to address root causes. I would describe how the War on Evil has led to the current situation, how the Program of Control creates more and more virulent forms of that which it tries to stamp out, because it cannot see the full set of conditions that produce its enemies. These conditions, I would explain, include at their core a profound dispossession stemming from the breakdown of defining myths and systems. Finally I would describe how a different mythology of wholeness, ecology, and interbeing would motivate a new politics.

Over five years I’ve made my case for peace and compassion – not as moral imperatives but as practical necessities. I have little new to say about the current internecine strife in my country. I could take the basic conceptual tools of my previous work and apply it to the present situation, but instead I am taking a pause, listening to what might be underneath the exhaustion and feeling of futility.


Charles’s creative project has many of the characteristics of making sanctuary. It is done at the scene of the crime -which is the complete discursive failure we are living through. It is done as an experiment -which this also is. It is ‘a modest move made in the face of daunting challenges.’ Where it might not (yet) be, is that making sanctuary is an experiment that involves the more-than-human more than it does the human. Making sanctuary is primarily not human work, but a coming to terms with the forces and beings around us that are involved and implicated in what we are experiencing. To centre the human in the act of making sanctuary disqualifies one from using the term. It falls back into discursive solutionism. Here is an excerpt from Dr Akomolafe’s essay:

The key point to nail here is: nothing transforms on its own. We need a theory of change that decenters humans as the driver of transformation, and which resituates human becomings within racial complexities, geometaphysical events and ideological formulas. We need sensuous demise – where demise is the gifting of properties to another. In this case, our demise might involve a double-move of falling into the matrixial womb of our unfettered animality and allowing the inhuman world to rise to the luxurious sentience and agency we reserved exclusively for ourselves. We need a shared humiliation, a coming down to earth, a different politics.

http://www.emergencenetwork.org/a-rehea ... sanctuary/

...

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:08 pm

.

There are times when powers of repression and censorship are aimed more at the left and times when they are aimed more at the right, but it is neither inherently a left-wing nor a right-wing tactic. It is a ruling class tactic, and it will be deployed against anyone perceived to be a dissident to ruling class interests and orthodoxies no matter where on the ideological spectrum they reside.


From:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ne ... -terror-is
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Grizzly » Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:22 pm

Just in case you still thought youtube wasn't in complete mockingbird media censorship mode:

YouTube Rejects Consortium News Appeal
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/02/26/youtube-rejects-consortium-news-appeal/

Image

Yes, that's CN Live! S2E26 Voter Suppression in Georgia – with Greg Palast

And I'm sure Bev Harris will also be blocked.
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Grizzly » Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:21 pm

Age-restricted video (requested by uploader)

Mockingbird, I mean youtube does everything to keep you from access, I do not and will not login

Lawyer Exposes Palantir Gangstalking Laser Program
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6XjefBDlXI



But if you do or can, Id love to hear about this... Palantir's Corrupt Data Mining & Targeting Program

Image

Image
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:57 am

.

https://laterum.wordpress.com/2021/03/1 ... attoniFest



PREMESSA

La gestione scellerata e suicida della pandemia da Covid-19 ha rappresentato un disastro per l’umanità. Il processo di degenerazione della società non può essere arrestato, ma deve altresì essere accompagnato alla sua naturale conclusione.

Il mondo post-moderno è letteralmente la centrifuga di una lavatrice che gira impazzita e inarrestabile: il mattonista nemmeno tenta di fermarla. Egli apre l’oblò e ci getta dentro un mattone.


Translated (semi-loosely):


"Il Mattone" (the Brick)

PREMISE

The wicked and suicidal handling of the Covid-19 pandemic has represented a disaster for humanity. The process of degeneration of society cannot be stopped, but must also be accompanied by its natural conclusion.

The post-modern world is literally the spinning of a washing machine that runs crazy and unstoppable: the bricklayer doesn't even try to stop it. He opens the porthole and throws a brick into it.

1. The brick is not a political movement. Rather, it is characterized as a form of absolute and immediate - unmediated - adhesion to a principle, an idea, an instance: the dry rejection of the post-pandemic soy-man paradigm.

1.1 For soy men, the pandemic represents the only way to feel part of a collective epos , through actions that are within their reach: staying at home or covering their faces. The soy-man chooses not to live in order not to run the infinitesimal risk of dying, or for the fear instilled in him of harming his neighbor.

1.2 The brick artist, on the contrary, rejects the false mythoi of the media and mediated narrative, opposing them with the only anthropological categories still valid at the same time in the post-pandemic world, namely the old slave / free man dichotomy. The contingent objective of the brick, if ever there were one, would be precisely to bring together all the free men of this world.

1.2.1 The one who has the brick is one of us, although we have already dissociated ourselves from whoever has the brick. The brick is a free association of dissociated people.

1.2.2 Ironically, you can have the brick even without literally having the brick, whatever that means. Likewise, possession is not worth title.

1.3 Brickwork is configured as a pre-political, transcendent and anthropological spiritual doctrine. The brick, among other things, is pure reaction, pure acceptance of the defeat and consequent strategic withdrawal from the world, renouncing any ambition. A sort of asceticism, at the same time sad and joyful. The brick is the search for a way out of the ravings of post-modernity, as well as being itself a plausible destination.

1.3.1 Being a spiritual doctrine, the brick has no official content or fixed ideas around anything. The individual bricklayers certainly have them, but they remain entirely personal and in no way attributable to the movement as a whole, from which everyone dissociates himself, always and in any case.

1.3.2 In fact, brickmaking has no homeland, if not in brick, and it has no compatriots but bricklayers.

1.3.3 Brick building therefore rejects any form of sex, race, gender, political or religious discrimination. Anyone can embrace the brick. If you have the brick you are my brother (regardless of your relationship with the taxman).

1.3.4 The brick therefore deprecates all forms of racism, except for one: adherence to the thought and political doctrine of Sen. Cav. Antonio Razzi.

1.3.5 Brick-making repudiates violence, without ifs and buts, as a method of struggle and resolution of political conflicts.

1.3.6 The bricklayer will never appeal to the so-called human rights, which in general he does not recognize, without prejudice to the right to go to the bank and post office

1.3.6 Brick-making returns to the sender any kind of ideological labeling: it has no ideology, because it considers ideologies now devoid of concrete meaning. In brick phenomenology, all ideologies are nothing more than infantile manifestations of the brick.

1.3.7 The brick artists, therefore, are not united by a specific ideology, nor (mainly) by a style: they are united by the same existential path. One becomes a brick artist through a spontaneous intuition of sympàtheia , with which one recognizes in the other a companion, a friend or, better, a frèn .

1.4 The brick is accelerationist: by means of its dialectic, it aims to open the way to the singularity that will lead to the definitive collapse of the current paradigm. It does not focus on the short-term marginal advantage, aware that within the aforementioned paradigm it would only be a Pyrrhic victory. On the contrary, it actively pursues the destruction of the current paradigm, both by creating an alternative one, and by applauding the more demented and self-destructive aspects of the current one. The brick artist is an amused spectator of the furious and post-rema autophagy of the Leviathan: having devoured everything else, all that remains is to feed on his own limbs.

1.4.1 Whenever Pirgopolinice-in-capo puts him (in spite of himself) before the hour of irrevocable decisions , the brick-maker hopes for the most forced, delusional, shameless and pregnant solution of previous pigs, so that even the naïve they begin to wade into the abyss, to develop the conviction that one cannot fight with reason an enemy who knows no measure, who unrepentantly flaunts his own shame .

1.4.2 The Italian Constitution is a sieve, which allows any filth in the name of "progress", amid the thunderous applause of five generations of constitutionalists. Thinking it could represent a trench is naive. The return to the "spirit of '48" and "originalist" interpretations are unrealistic perspectives.

1.5 The bricklayer is a flat earther, otherwise how can the antipodals not fall down? Either way, he doesn't think the Earth is actually flat - that's not the point.

1.6 As a spiritual doctrine, brickwork is applicable to all fields of human knowledge (and also to what, transcending human reason, does not belong to the realm of knowledge).

* * *

2. The society of entertainment, mediated by TV and propaganda media, has created a fictitious reality, not even remotely traceable with one's senses, which promptly return a reality different from that presented by the media. Whoever intends to persuade us otherwise, prepare to fail. Therefore, the brick represents a real response to the fictional reality staged by the media.

2.1 It not only rejects "reality", but - avant-garde - creates an alternative, specular and at the same time opposite, where the conflicts, concepts and categories of propaganda cease to have meaning.

2.1.1 The brick sits, uninvited (and empty-handed), at the same table as the media, playing their own game, hiding up its sleeve the clandestine idea of ​​truth.

2.1.2 In this media game - because it is now a game - it is the story that produces reality, in order to arouse the blind adhesion of the public. In this dynamic, power fails to repress in itself the temptation to constantly test the unconditional fidelity of its followers, plunging the narrative more and more into the incoherent, the absurd, the insane.

2.1.3 Paradoxically, the more blind and deaf one is, the more one is immune to narration. Conversely, the more you enjoy good eyesight, the more vulnerable you are to the narrative. The bricklayer enjoys excellent eyesight, yet he is just as far from the narrative as the blind man is.

2.1.4 The brick, therefore, intends to make the breaking of the story spectacular.

2.2 Having been the traditional principles of logic, science, philosophy, politics and art incorporated by the spectacle, made deformed and insignificant, the brick rehabilitates and dignifies them with new practices of de-spectacularization of reality. The brick, with an impromptu and unpredictable move, bursts onto the stage and, possessed by the sacred fury, takes all the parts to itself: protagonist, supporting actor and extra. But it is the only lie (the brick does not exist), while, going on stage, it tells only the truth.

2.2.1 By formally rejecting these principles, he rehabilitates them and gives them new life, carrying out the reverse process of reality mediated by the spectacle, which formally accepts them, in fact humiliates them. Trivially, by rejecting its encoding, it allows new spaces of possibilities. Ultimately, the bricklayer is infinite unto himself.

2.2.2 The brick is not the truth, nor does it possess it, but it aims to break the mirror that hides its view. It returns man to the idea of ​​immanent truth: it is anti-modernist properly in that it refuses to believe that there is no state of affairs. The brick asserts, as a necessary condition for freedom, the faculty of man to be able to grasp and affirm the truth; applauds the longing of the generous who tends to it.

2.3 The practice with which the brick carries out its own purposes consists in the denunciation of the debate, the rejection of a non-debate decided a priori and addressed by those who have access to the stage. In a situation in which the debate itself is pre-chewed by the omnivorous jaws of the spectacle, the brick refuses to participate, and indeed denounces it as a method of imposing ideas.

2.3.1. Since noesis is a gnoseological principle superior to dianoia , the brick artist intends to recover intuition as an indispensable cognitive tool of logical thought, all the more so in an era of systematic distortion and adulteration of scientific thought by the masters of discourse.

* * *

3. Our century apologizes for itself by claiming science and technology as neutral and infallible normative principles of one's actions: the brick, the new Prometheus, intends to unmask this claim, indicating the will as the ultimate engine of all human action.

3.1 The domain of technology presupposes that the management of life and the settlement of conflicts are scientific, rational, objective problems. By denying its purely political nature, power uses experts and the so-called scientific consensus to conceal its dominance and disguise its tyrannical nature.

3.2 The existential path at the basis of brick-making is constituted by the rejection of the principle of authority, and of the narrative to which it suits. Brick-making believes that no truth can be learned from statistical data processing. Rather, he prefers haruspicina as this, while corresponding to it in substance, is an older and more venerable art. Of course he doesn't believe either of them, but that's not the point.

3.3 Power consists in being able to establish causal relations - or affirm their absence - ex auctoritate . Such a crucial prerogative cannot be abandoned to a "free scientific debate" with unpredictable outcomes, but is invoked by power, which, by disposing of it at its own will, stages a pseudo-freedom, a pseudo-debate, a pseudoscience.

3.3.1 Science serves as both a notary and a propagandist of power. It has abandoned the method to become a bureaucratic cult.

3.3.2 To the so-called “scientific truth” we oppose intuition, conjecture, wit, as extraneous to the branch of the spectacle.

3.3.3 Sources are corrupted at source. This means that the brick does not pursue a conception in which the agora, the public sphere, is occupied by individuals who must be substantially "journalists of themselves". Besides being utopian and unrealistic, this solution would only contribute to further concealing the dominion of the current "masters of speech", contributing to the preservation of their yoke.

3.3.4 No reality is real if it is not embodied and therefore directly experienced. Life is truth, truth is life.

3.3.5 Only sacred facts can boast - not abusively - the attribute of truth: they are not only unproven as worthy of faith, but worthy of faith as unproven. Only a fact whose truth attribute lacks a priori may need proof. Prove the opposite.

3.3.6 The brick pursues the total disintermediation of human and media relations, which to be possible must be total and radical.

3.4 The bricklayers accept offenses, insults and in general any civil or uncivil manifestation of dissent between members and outsiders, as an authentic dialectical means of forming the thinking self, as opposed to the super-ego of the soy man who stages non -thinks, impractical and prepackaged.

3.4.1 The bricklayer is not vulnerable to the reversals of fortune and the provocations of the treacherous. He will not be troubled by the contempt of the world, because he knows that the path to asceticism is perilous and lewd.

3.5 With the collapse of ideologies and of collective mass society in general, in the post-pandemic 5.0 world, there is no longer any intermediate body between the self and the other, not even one's own flesh. Brickmaking wishes to reconnect this intermediation through the "webs", subverting the old mythical categories.

3.6 Brick-making therefore considers the webs the most fertile ground for the birth of a new being, of new social, anthropological, ontological constructions, hitherto impossible because they were blocked by the intermediaries of the structures of power. Despite everything, the web remains the freest non-place on earth. Therefore, the brick does not intend to digitize reality, but to make it digital.

3.6.1 Brick making uses the categories of pop culture and the lexicon borrowed from urban language to make these categories explicit and manifest.

3.6.2 The expressive means through which brick-making transforms and overturns the existing categories are post-irony, shitposting and MeMe, a pure and free art form, therefore of the people.


User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:01 pm

.

https://www.aier.org/article/twitter-ce ... kulldorff/


Twitter Censors Famed Epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff

March 29, 2021

We’ve been witness to Twitter censorship for more than a year, beginning with obviously objectionable extremists then gradually moving to silence people based on merely having an opinion that contradicts lockdown orthodoxy. There have been days when I wondered whether I would cross the invisible line and even whether AIER would itself be silenced. Stanford public health expert Scott Atlas has been censored, and Naomi Wolf, visiting senior fellow at AIER, was put in Twitter jail for a week for landing on the wrong side of the high priests of allowable content.

Well, a new line has been crossed. Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff and co-creator of the Great Barrington Declaration, one of the most cited epidemiologists and infectious -disease experts in the world (latest count of citations: 25,290) has been censored by Twitter. His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post.

Image

Here is what he wrote without the warning slapped in front of it:

Image

Keep in mind, too, that Dr. Kulldorff serves on the Covid-19 vaccine safety subgroup that the CDC, NIH, and FDA rely upon for technical expertise on this very subject.

So here we have some geeks at Twitter curating science, in areas totally outside the specialization of web nerds, in a way that skews public understanding of the scientific debate. Dr. Kulldorff’s censorship directly coincides with Anthony Fauci making a political push to retain social distancing and mask restrictions and forced separation for children until they are vaccinated. He was all over Sunday TV shows doing that.

This attempt to silence accredited experts completely distorts the process of scientific inquiry, discovery, and public opinion. And to what end? Twitter has generally been biased in a lockdown direction. If you want to be cynical about it, you could observe that everyone who works there can get by on laptops and houseshoes for the duration.

Its stock price has more than doubled in the course of lockdowns and user engagement has risen dramatically.

It would appear that with this latest act of censorship – we are not talking about political extremism or anything else that violates normal terms of use – we have entered into a new realm. Twitter is now curating the scientific debate in ways that exclude alternative points of view, particularly those that raise doubts about the need for universalized vaccines and vaccine passports. To be sure, Dr. Kulldorff is not an anti-vaxxer (why should I have to say that?) but instead has a nuanced position in light of his professional understanding of the demographics of risk of this virus.

If there ever was a troubling sign of the power and arrogance of big tech, of which I’ve long been a defender, this new action is it. Dr. Kulldorff has been a brave proponent of traditional public health in the midst of an unprecedented and very obviously failed policy of lockdowns. He has been a voice of clarity, reason, calm, and science. That Twitter would choose to use its power over public debate to silence his insights should be of profound concern to everyone concerned about the use of science in the public interest.

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:48 pm

How much longer before any speech questioning nay aspect of the Great Reset in banned by all tech giants?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:43 pm

.


Tangentially-related to current and historical events, and specific to Empire. From a review of the movie, The Counselor:


The world of diamonds and Armani excess which the counselor belongs to, and which he makes his deal to maintain—the world of America imperialism—depends not only on sneaky trading, money laundering, and drug manufacture but upon acts so horrendous that most people refuse to even believe they are happening. To one degree or another, we are all complicit with that horror. The counselor’s realization that he has sacrificed the one thing of true value in exchange for hard, cold, shiny trinkets is the realization that’s waiting for all of us, in lieu of “Heaven.”

https://boxes.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.c ... nselor.pdf


The Counselor (or The Counsellor which it's known as in the UK) is a 2013 crime thriller film directed by Ridley Scott and written by Cormac McCarthy. It stars Michael Fassbender as the eponymous Counselor as well as Penélope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Javier Bardem and Brad Pitt. The film deals with themes such as greed, mortality, love, and trust in the context of the Mexican drug trade. The extremely violent and bloodthirsty activities of drug cartels are depicted as the Counselor, a high-level lawyer, gets involved in a drug deal around the troubled Ciudad Juarez, Mexico/Texas border area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Counselor
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby stickdog99 » Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:11 pm

The Disintegration of the ACLU

Principles? What principles?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:16 pm

Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby thrulookingglass » Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:57 am

And kudos to the CIA/Illumanti agent which was able to infect everyone with fear of a new "Al Qaeda" uprising via CNN today. Stop the steal.
The battle for hearts and minds...
Whom do you serve?
Fear your God.

Veneer is peeling off the statues of old. What gods will contain us now?






:whisper: war on china, the chinese are coming, war on china, war on china, the chinese empire is threatening american democracy, china is encroaching on american freedoms, the chinese are taking over
User avatar
thrulookingglass
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: down the rabbit hole USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby dada » Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:27 pm

I think there is great wisdom in saying "fear your god," as opposed to "fear god." It's like the saying, "he who knows himself, knows his lord." Maybe "she who knows herself, knows her lady," if the soul is conceived of in the feminine. The idea being that the only way I can "know god" is through my god. So the god which contains me is the god which I contain.

I wonder if we could maybe view the tweet, tweeting, sharing tweets as an inherently suppressive form of media within the propaganda field. Participating in the reproduction of social media starts to look like the shutting down of dialogue with thoughts outside of the propaganda field.

Then the only use of a tweet depends on the time-sensitive nature of its content. Say the people are on the streets, and one tweets, "blockade forming at union square." The information is useful for the people, who would prefer to stay out of the kettling trap.

But even that has its drawbacks, since while tomorrow the content of the tweet is no longer useful to the people, it can still be used against them since it leaves a traceable marker, which leaves them exposed to future arrests.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby thrulookingglass » Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:06 pm

Depends on what is tweeted. Whose influence shall you surrender to?

*Thanks for the "fear your god" comment. It put things in a new perspective for me. As an anarchist its hard to agree with the existence of an authority figure.
User avatar
thrulookingglass
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: down the rabbit hole USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby dada » Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:23 pm

"she who knows herself, knows her lady," if the soul is conceived of in the feminine.

For those with a perfectly understandable resistance to the religious terminology, rejecting all interpretations including the poetic as a matter of principle, I'd present it in a demystified interpretation, say that a soul is a living body of knowledge. A body of knowledge that knows itself, knows the space in which it takes place.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Grizzly » Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:28 pm

Remember this piece of shit?

Image

hxxps://www.reddit.com/r/SunValley2021/
the Sun Valley Conference, where the Billionaires get together to weave their lies. and cast they're spells.
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests