Crisis Update - The Axe Of Censorship Falls

Fox fires Tucker Carlson, days after caving to Dominion vote scalpers

• The only way to forward on Twitter is with URL shortener: https://bit.ly/3oJ16VZ

• Second hand news blinds many to the assault on opinionated debate

• Uniparty decries polarisation, but uses it to blind us to divergent thoughts

• Hate speech laws are being implemented to give groupthink the force of law

• Military propagandists want to use ‘deepfakes’ to manipulate public fears

• RESIST Bill would give U.S. gov ability to ban content, prosecute readers

• The Guardian and Bill Maher misdiagnose Woke; hiding its elite origins

• Arthur Koestler foresaw cancel culture that compatriot George Soros promotes

• Censorship castrates what it is to be human; it is an act of transhumanism

• This is the Google concept — that there is only one answer to a question

See also The Press On Its Dying Bed (Moneycircus, Mar 26, 2022)
A Free Speech Call To Arms (Dec 4, 2022)
The Public-Private Censorship Industry (Feb 27, 2023)

(About 2,500 words or 12 minutes of your company)

Apr 25, 2023

The story that had dominated the alt news space this past week — legal documents hinting at Saudi-CIA ties to the 9/11 “hijackers” — has been upstaged.

It was never as far-reaching as Tucker Carlson’s prime time announcement of the CIA’s complicity in assassinating president John F Kennedy.

If you doubt: you may notice that Tucker Carlson no longer has a job.

The powers that be also took exception to his publication of videos from the Capitol on Jan 6th 2021 which showed “insurrectionists” being escorted peacefully through the building by police.

With those two stories Carlson demolished the uniparty’s claim to the moral high ground — something it desperately seeks after the electoral shenanigans of Nov 2020. Oh, and he laid into big pharma and its control of the news networks.

He exposed the cowardice and complicity of the Democratic Party’s leadership in the six decades since JFK’s assassination. Robert Kennedy Jr called it the bravest piece of journalism in 60 years. Yesterday RFK called Carlson “breathtakingly courageous.”

“Fox fires @tuckercarlson five days after he crosses the red line by acknowledging that the TV networks pushed a deadly and ineffective vaccine to please their Pharma advertisers,” Kennedy wrote on Twitter. “Carlson's breathtakingly courageous April 19 monologue broke TV’s two biggest rules: Tucker told the truth about how greedy Pharma advertisers controlled TV news content and he lambasted obsequious newscasters for promoting jabs they knew to be lethal and worthless.”

What has happened in the past week is that the uniparty, the deep state, the globalist corporate owners — however you choose to define them — have acted swiftly to mute a threat to their narrative.

It is as brisk a move as the ejection of James O’Keefe by a coup within Project Veritas only days after he exposed a Pfizer executive discussing gain-of-function research.

Whatever the truth of these allegations — by Carlson or O’Keefe — some powerful people were adamant they should not speak and had the means to silence them.

“Anything you’re not allowed to ask questions about, is something you should be asking more questions about.” — Tucker Carlson.

Or as journalists would say in the days when they performed a trade, before it was corrupted as a profession:

“News is what someone wants suppressed. Everything else is advertising.”

Sadly this will be lost on those who consume progressive-dominated state corporate media, and even the partisan among the alt media.

They are dancing a merry jig on his grave, and The Guardian or NYT-reading crowd lack the conscience, self-awareness or political nous to consider what just happened.

They won’t read this article because Carlson; because Fox. The British Left has hated Rupert Murdoch since a long and tragic strike by printers, in 1986-7, at the Wapping print works. Younger ones may not know of those origins. For some it’s enough that Fox is toxic by association with president Donald Trump — even as they ridicule Carlson for denigrating Trump in private.

The failure is that many people will miss the profound implications of this story: the extent to which powerful hands strangle popular voices.

Carlson is influential by modern standards. He had an audience of about three million, considerably more than rival channels in the state corporate media. Fox News is hardly big-C Conservative — on most topics, including the 2020 U.S. general election, it takes the same line as the rest of television, print and online news which is to intone with a monotonous sameness. [1]

His punishment comes days after Fox caved to the Dominion-Smartmatic vote counting companies rather than challenge the narrative of the 2020 election.

See Kennedy And America's Struggle For Its Soul (Moneycircus, Apr 22, 2023)

Again, to some people this will simply align with the consensus advanced uniformly by the Democratic Party, most of the Republican Party, almost all global leaders, the corporations like Unilever whose executives pledge to “never give up on Woke,” the World Economic Forum, the foundations — Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, Clinton, Gates and a gaggle of less famous family names.

Murdoch has a long history of walking the line between supporting journalism and bowing to the powerful — hardly surprising as his newspaper and television companies have more than once required financial aid.

Indeed, like that other media mogul Michael Bloomberg, Murdoch is unlikely to have built such an empire without support in high places.

In 2011 Murdoch closed The News Of The World, at the time one of the world’s highest English-language-circulation newspapers. The pretext was a phone hacking scandal that turned out not to have happened (in the supposedly most egregious case of Milly Dowler) — no matter. With the support of the establishment, and an emotional campaign headed by the actor Hugh Grant, the 168-year old newspaper was closed, and its archive taken off line.

That archive contained NOTW’s extensive investigations into pedophilia — on which it was the most courageous newspaper anywhere. It exposed the operation by British security services of a child rape ring connected to the Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast, through which Unionist and Republican politicians, along with Westminster MPs, could be blackmailed and controlled.

Murdoch likely bowed to the intelligence services back then, as he has done once again by silencing Tucker Carlson.

Policing uniformity

“Philanthropic” foundations are a front for corporate owners. This is not hard to establish since they are a form of tax avoidance and profit. They are used to craft laws, set policy or modify regulation in ways that benefit their for-profit siblings.

They also seek to control the reporting around their activities. Search for a story about them and you will notice that these same foundations pay fact checkers and media watchdogs to burnish their image. You won’t find many critical stories in your results.

Fact checkers are paid to bemoan the polarisation of media, as if everyone must take the same view. Former CEO of Google, Clinton benefactor and Pentagon board member Eric Schmidt has argued on several occasions that a search result should yield only one acceptable answer.

See The Public-Private Censorship Industry (Moneycircus, Feb 27, 2023)

Governments pass laws that criminalise dissent under the guise of hate speech. The latest is more brazen still: the RESTRICT Act would formalise a process for government agencies to “deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate” services they deem threatening, if any company has access to “sensitive personal data” from more than one million U.S. people.

That could force app store operators Apple and Google to ban TikTok or anything deemed similar. Ars Technica called the bill so broad it could apply to almost any tech product. [2]

Sharing on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3oJ16VZ

The uniparty is trying to fast-track the bill, limiting lawmakers’ time to discuss the measure on the pretext of emergency. The bill contains numerous grey areas that should be clarified, such as whether it would criminalise the use of VPN to access content from a banned app, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warns. The relevant clause reads:

“No person may engage in any transaction or take any other action with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder.”

The executive branch would not have to explain its decision to ban a particular company if it was “not practicable,” nor would it have to state whether it had any information to justify such a ban. That would render a legal challenge barely possible.

The U.S. is the latest country to introduce legislation to restrict public discourse. The UK, Ireland, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Germany are among countries that have laws “written in grey” — leaving the final definition to law enforcement and the courts.

This is how the Soviet Union was governed, with laws open to broad interpretation, that could be executed or waived, depending on whether an individual felt the billow of political winds at his back, or confronted the headwinds of disfavour. See the Soviet law concept of “criminal repression” in the absence of guilt, and “social parasitism”.

TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance. Only a fool thinks it is the only target. The Bill, after all, is named RESTRICT. The appropriate response to legislators is “perch and rotate.”

The EFF says the U.S. Congress should instead pass “comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation that will have a real impact, and protect our data no matter what platform it’s on — TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, or anywhere else that profits from our private information... Foreign adversaries won’t be able to get our data from social media companies if the social media companies aren’t allowed to collect, retain, and sell it in the first place.”

Ah, but… the security state wants to collect, retain and sell consumer data as much as the next tyrant. It has no interest in protecting users of social media, least of all children, who are subject to a tidal wave of psychological manipulation from Western institutions. There is no need for China to get involved, but thanks for the offer.

If you think Western military intelligence has citizens’ interest at heart, here’s where it gets bewildering.

New technologies allow any crisis to serve as a pretext for legislation to be conjured out of thin air. The required enemy or imminent threat can be projected on the screen as vividly as Emmanuel Goldstein, the rival of Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four, loosely based on Leon Trotsky, who is the object of the Two Minutes Hate — the daily routine in which citizens project their hatred on Goldstein, and thus demonstrate their love of Big Brother.

Here’s another clue that hate speech legislation may not be about preventing hate (which the laws don’t define) but directing it!