Crisis Update: Governments Are Criminalizing Dissent

Conspiracy theorists are now branded as anti-Semites

• People who question their government are racists, says UK government figure

• Conspiracy theorists likely to be anti-Semites, says UK’s ‘levelling’ minister

• Critical thinking is conspiracy theory – learn critical theory instead

• Doubting practically anything may be ruled out of bounds

• The State projects its own guiltiness onto the ‘hateful’ masses

• A criminal conspiracy uses fear of demonisation to quell opposition

Excerpt:

Researcher Daniel Allington of King’s College said “What we found is that antisemitic views are more likely among conspiracy theorists, revolutionaries and people who see dictatorship as an acceptable form of government.”

Already we see an illogical, ideological conflation. By what measure would a Constitutionalist who alleged a government was flouting the rules be a revolutionary? And how is that defined — the World Economic Forum proposes technological, political and social revolution? Or the late Ted Kaczynski who warned of such a technological revolution and opposed its social consequences — but who was also a dangerous man?

As for dictatorship we are already in a medical tyranny, fast on the way to a scientific dictatorship as described by Aldous Huxley, in which anyone who objects is already called a conspiracy theorist and thus is now designated an anti-Semite — arguably by the very proponents of dictatorship.

The traditional use of conspiracy theorist, by the CIA itself, is someone who accuses the authorities of deliberate malfeasance.

(Just under 3,000 words or about 14 minutes of collusion, connivance and conspiracy.)

Source: UNESCO

Jul 11, 2023

If you question the government, you may be a conspiracy theorist. And if so, you are likely an anti-Semite. And if that’s the case, you are beyond the Pale.

British politicians have made the link and are using it to press for more censorship. You may be tarred and feathered for statements, views or opinions, and you may even be found to be a witch and declared a racist for views that have nothing to do with race or ethnicity, let alone Jews or any other cohort.

It is governments, and the corporations and owners behind them, that have promoted, in the name of Covid over these past three years, a policy that is, by their own admission, eugenic. And eugenics is based on racism.

And yet you, dear citizen — if you dare to question those governments — are the racist.

But first there has to be a feint, a trick that shames you into compliance.

The professor of media studies at New York University, Mark Crispin Miller, says propaganda is not just misinformation, it has become a source of your very identity, so that you are made part of a clan.

MCM confirms our suspicion that Trump Derangement Syndrome, with its flip side of virtue signalling, was created back in 2016 as a tool of mass compliance. It was later deployed during the Covid response to push the idea that compliance saved lives, endowing the compliant with virtue. It was thus that freedom was turned into an enemy.

More on Crispin Miller’s findings below.

5th Generation Warfare

King's College London, part of London University, studied whether antisemitism was more common among those calling themselves left- or right-wing.

They could not find any link. So they suggested that “antisemitism may be less closely linked to political beliefs than has previously been implied, and more closely linked to opinions and views on other topics such as religion, ethnic nationalism, and conspiracy theories.”

In other words, the enemy is no longer on the left or the right — it is everwhere! This fits with the 5th Generation Warfare doctrine of NATO, that the enemy is as much at home as abroad. King’s College is known for its war studies department.

The Labour MP Alex Sobel asked Michael Gove, Britain’s minister for “levelling up,” for stricter limits on speech, calling for the government to restore a gag that even ministers had thought was too tight.

“What is the Secretary of State doing to tackle conspiracism, misinformation and fake news and why are the measures in the Online Safety Bill so weak and why have the Government removed the legal but harmful provision which protects so much of the Jewish community?” [1]

Gove claimed there was a “considerable overlap” between antisemitism and conspiracy theories but resisted Sobel’s argument that the Online Safety Bill was weak.

“Legal but harmful” is a clause that would force tech companies to censor, and possibly the courts to prosecute, accurate information or knowledge that is not unlawful, if some a third party deemed it likely to cause physical or psychological harm or offence. The children’s charity NSPCC says on its web site:

“There is no official definition for legal but harmful content. The term is used to describe images, words and videos that are legal to create and view but have a high risk of causing physical or psychological damage or injury.”

The clause had been introduced with the Online Safety Bill in May 2021. Some people thought a ban on “legal but harmful” was too mild — saying it left the undefined phrase to the discretion of tech companies. [2]

In Nov 2022, the government dropped proposals to force internet companies to take down “legal but harmful” content, after protests from the tech industry and free speech advocates.

Ofcom and asphyxiation

Even without the clause, Financial Times said the Bill would “still create one of the toughest online regulatory regimes in the world, giving sweeping powers to media regulator Ofcom to investigate and fine internet companies who do not comply.”

The Office Of Communications is now investigating GB News and TalkTV over “impartiality rules.” The Guardian trumpets: “Rightwing TV channels’ use of politicians as presenters comes under scrutiny following complaints.”

“GB News and TalkTV’s willingness to push opinionated television news in a manner not traditionally seen on British television has left Ofcom playing catch-up, trying to apply a broadcast code written in a different era dominated by the BBC and ITV.”

This pitting of the public against a “threat” goes way back to the phoney debate over bias.

If you know who is Nigel Farage and therefore what he is likely to say, there is no risk that you will fall victim to bias. If you don’t know who he is, you are a “low information voter” and bias or no bias ain’t gonna move you.

Much more dangerous is censorship by omission, not mentioned by Ofcom at all. There is the Overton Window; there is the Covid response using fear, nudges and behavioural manipulation; there is censorship and propaganda that causes the media to speak with one voice; and there is the BBC’s commitment to diversity of colour, but not of opinion; and its refusal to acknowledge more than three parties — get a comment from the Tories, one from Labour and occasionally put on a Liberal. Independent challengers or “fringe” parties don't qualify. The BBC eliminates any opinion from outside the status quo. (The author was a BBC trainee, worked on the Today programme and Breakfast News).

What bothers Ofcom, which is dominated by former BBC lifers, is the expansion of digital platforms which means that anyone can now compete with the BBC and ITN. It is not bias they care about but the fact that these “fringe” parties and independent challengers have a platform at all.

Online safety

The government says it wants to protect children, to restrict anything that encourages self-harm or suicide, and non-consensual images such as so-called deepfakes or revenge porn. However, it is widely acknowledged that the concept of “hate” is woefully — some would say purposefully — undefined.

As for linking a concept as inflammatory as anti-Semitism to any disputed narratives, controversial social and political projects, or real-time contested events like wars or elections… this is not simply dangerous but malevolent.

Researcher Daniel Allington of King’s College said “What we found is that antisemitic views are more likely among conspiracy theorists, revolutionaries and people who see dictatorship as an acceptable form of government.”

Already we see an illogical, ideological conflation. By what measure would a Constitutionalist who alleged a government was flouting the rules be a revolutionary? And how is that defined: the World Economic Forum proposes technological, political and social revolution. What of the late Ted Kaczynski who warned of such a technological revolution — and opposed its social consequences — but who was also a dangerous man?

As for dictatorship we are already in a medical tyranny, fast on the way to a scientific dictatorship as described by Aldous Huxley, in which anyone who objects is already called a conspiracy theorist and thus is now designated an anti-Semite — arguably by the very proponents of dictatorship.

Recall in Feb 2021 the New York Times said that thinking critically was dangerous. It quoted Michael Caulfield, a “digital literacy expert” at Washington State University: “The goal of disinformation is to capture attention, and critical thinking is deep attention.” [3]

Critical thinking is linked to conspiracy theory, a term which the Central Intelligence Agency promoted in order to demonise those who questioned the official narrative of the Kennedy assassinations. [4]

Even the fact that the CIA promoted the term “conspiracy theory” is presented by Google as a conspiracy theory, while the NYT says do not trust your own ability to research. See where this leads?

Already people are afraid to think for themselves or to express opinions.

The podcaster Sarah Westall recently mentioned she had consulted an expert in promotion, presumably to grow her site. The publicist warned that she told too much, she analysed motives and consequences: too much information for a mass audience. The majority can only go so far.

Yet you cannot fight an enemy unless you can identify him or her.

Expose you must, for when you expose evil, you are detoxing, in Sarah’s words. You are expunging the worst in society. The destruction of countries and cultures did not happen overnight: we allowed it to happen. It is up to us to reverse it.