Jump to content
The Education Forum

Conspiracy Theories & The Media: JFK & Beyond ....


Chris Barnard
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 416
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Chris,

     I share everyone's general concerns about the pitfalls of censorship but, to play the Devil's Advocate, are there situations in which censorship might be ethical?

1)  False advertising?   

2)  Preventing stochastic terrorism-- e.g., banning propaganda from demagogues who incite violence against minority groups or immigrants?

3)  Banning propaganda that promotes violent insurrections against democracies -- e.g., the Wiemar Republic, January 6th, etc. ??

4)  Banning disinformation that undermines the public health and safety?

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

     I share everyone's general concerns about the pitfalls of censorship but, to play the Devil's Advocate, are there situations in which censorship might be ethical?

1)  False advertising?   

2)  Preventing stochastic terrorism-- e.g., banning propaganda from demagogues who incite violence against minority groups or immigrants?

3)  Banning propaganda that promotes violent insurrections against democracies -- e.g., the Wiemar Republic, January 6th, etc. ??

4)  Banning disinformation that undermines the public health and safety?

Hi William, 

That's an interesting post and a point that advocates of censorship have made here previously on some levels around google and co. censoring. 

The words of JFK are reverberating in my head, they went something like this:

"For a democracy to survive, a society must be educated, vigilant and ready to rise up should their freedoms be threatened with being taken away."

He also said nobody should attempt to stifle the news, and criticism should be welcomed. 

When has censorship worked out well in history? 

Are we talking about two separate things here or one of the same? 

Most censorship (that I am aware of) seems to happening on social media platforms where public discourse is taking place. That sometimes is affecting people socially or at work, when honest views are expressed that are not supported by the mainstream narrative. That sometimes comes with demonetisation, hiding content down search listings, or outright bans, deletion of accounts. Having seen the effectiveness of Cambridge Analytica in 2015 and 2016, it may even be possible that we're not cognisant of where most censorship takes place. 

Should the longstanding legal frameworks of the countries concerned take care of 1, 2, 3 & 4? ie, if a law is broken, then you are summoned to court and afforded due process? Regarding option 1, if US advertising is anything like UK advertising, then we're failing at that miserably. In Britain we're advertising foods and beverages that are killing far more people that Covid ever will, it's just lost in the numbers, all of us can see the cancer rises. Diabetes, strokes, heart attacks, cancers (nobody cares about them) etc etc. Number 2, I question how much of a role the state and its politicians actually have in that department. It suits them to have us divided in as many ways as possible, the British were great at that in building empire.   Number 3 is actually a fascinating topic, as I have mentioned to others here, I personally don't believe American democracy was almost lost in January this year. I believe it was lost either on 22/11/63 or, more likely 22/11/1910, which is a date unfamiliar to most, I am sure. I have asked anybody to explain the logistics of how the coup would have played out In January and how it would have been completed but, nobody can explain that. For me it was amplified and sold to us. The result is you now have another 'day in infamy' and a nice numerical abbreviation that can be used for propaganda purposes, anytime the population should consider mass protests against tyranny. I am sure are familiar with the Mayor Daley and Nixon era stuff, police turning protests violent. I may be in the minority here but, I am much more concerned about the state and its misuse of power, than a revolution. If laws are being broken, then give them due process, using the legal frameworks. The Brown Shirts actually performed a false flag to achieve their goal but, so did America & Johnson at the Bay of Tonkin to escalate Vietnam. Number 4, really is the most relevant (for me), as certain social media groups were telling parents to give their kids bleach to cure autism. Society certainly doesn't need that going on. Then we get to this balance, if you only permit the state, corporations or, its financially connected acolytes have any opinion, or a say, then you also end up in a very dangerous scenario, if the intentions of those people are not good. Which I think is what we are seeing now. I find it very hard to accept that the people who are pushing climate change the hardest, and also population control, are the ones that are the strongest advocates of the vaccines, and saving every human life possible. 

To me, education and being taught problem solving and to critically think, solves much of the above. Instead of doing that, we seem less educated and more reliant on tech and the state than we've ever been. Many of these legal frameworks have been around since the founding fathers, I think they still take care of much of what we are seeing. 

I am with you playing devils advocate on much of the above. We need to have a compass on this. 

A big question I might ask, which relates to 4, do we have the right to body autonomy? As specified in the Nuremberg code. Or should we disregard that for the alleged greater good? I think the argument could be made that there has been unprecedented level of coercion and pressure in regard to taking these vaccines. I feel certain that anyone making a strong case on social media in regard to that would be censored. 

Cheers

Chris

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

     Honestly, I never thought I would see the day when I believed that some degree of censorship might, conceivably, be necessary and ethical in the U.S. -- in the public interest.

    In recent years, I have seen inflammatory, partisan propaganda in the U.S. mainstream media completely polarize American society.  It has also led directly to an increase in hate crimes and, earlier this year, to a violent insurrection against our democratically elected Federal government.

     I've witnessed the media-induced polarization of our society even in my own extended family, as many Americans have.

    The problem is multi-determined, but it seems to be partly a result of the abrogation of the Fairness Act in the U.S. in 1988, which required that major media outlets grant equal time to advocates of both sides of politically divisive issues.

    The last time I traveled in the U.K. (1990) I was very impressed by the quality of the BBC News (including no commercials!)  We had nothing comparable in the U.S. then, and things are much worse now.

     At the very least, I think the U.S. needs to re-implement some version of the Fairness Act.

    
    

 

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

     Honestly, I never thought I would see the day when I believed that some degree of censorship might, conceivably, be necessary and ethical in the U.S. -- in the public interest.

    In recent years, I have seen inflammatory, partisan propaganda in the U.S. mainstream media completely polarize American society.  It has also led directly to an increase in hate crimes and, earlier this year, to a violent insurrection against our democratically elected Federal government.

     I've witnessed the media-induced polarization of our society even in my own extended family, as many Americans have.

    The problem is multi-determined, but it seems to be partly a result of the abrogation of the Fairness Act in the U.S. in 1988, which required that major media outlets grant equal time to advocates of both sides of politically divisive issues.

    The last time I traveled in the U.K. (1990) I was very impressed by the quality of the BBC News (including no commercials!)  We had nothing comparable in the U.S. then, and things are much worse now.

     At the very least, I think the U.S. needs to re-implement some version of the Fairness Act.

    
    

 

 

Hi William, 

TBH it's the first I have heard of the 'Fairness Act', when I flick between Fox & CNN, it could not be more polarising, or vitriolic at times. It just leads to two tribes and those factions seeking confirmation bias material constantly. It's difficult for me to judge BBC, it had a reputation as being of quality back then, BBC world service was the standard for a long time. They do fantastic nature documentaries but, today there is little of no difference between the BBC (government/tax payer funded) and SKY (Murdoch funded). In my opinion they are most regularly acting as a counterpoint to government, appearing on the side of the people but, manufacturing consent for government policy. The government then appears to compromise, which pleases the readers. Back to Covid, its very easy to predict government decisions on lockdowns and now vaccine passports, as we always get 2-4 weeks of very hard pushing via BBC/SKY and by the time the government speaks, it always seems they have been listening to the news networks, the self appointed voices of the people. My opinion was very different in 1990, 2000 or 2010 but, it seems very much like the EU funding of many aspects of life, has paved the way for Austrian, Richard Von Coudenhove Kalergi's vision for Europe, funded by American money. He was the author of "Practical Idealism". I spend a lot of time with German's living in exile (also tax dodgers), their views of the EU are the same. What masqueraded as a trading block, had desires to be a super-state controlling Europe, their agenda to erode/destroy nation states. They provided a lot of BBC funding for the past two decades or so. Culturally, Britain has changed a lot in this time. 

Cheers

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi William, 

TBH it's the first I have heard of the 'Fairness Act', when I flick between Fox & CNN, it could not be more polarising, or vitriolic at times. It just leads to two tribes and those factions seeking confirmation bias material constantly. It's difficult for me to judge BBC, it had a reputation as being of quality back then, BBC world service was the standard for a long time. They do fantastic nature documentaries but, today there is little of no difference between the BBC (government/tax payer funded) and SKY (Murdoch funded). In my opinion they are most regularly acting as a counterpoint to government, appearing on the side of the people but, manufacturing consent for government policy. The government then appears to compromise, which pleases the readers. Back to Covid, its very easy to predict government decisions on lockdowns and now vaccine passports, as we always get 2-4 weeks of very hard pushing via BBC/SKY and by the time the government speaks, it always seems they have been listening to the news networks, the self appointed voices of the people. My opinion was very different in 1990, 2000 or 2010 but, it seems very much like the EU funding of many aspects of life, has paved the way for Austrian, Richard Von Coudenhove Kalergi's vision for Europe, funded by American money. He was the author of "Practical Idealism". I spend a lot of time with German's living in exile (also tax dodgers), their views of the EU are the same. What masqueraded as a trading block, had desires to be a super-state controlling Europe, their agenda to erode/destroy nation states. They provided a lot of BBC funding for the past two decades or so. Culturally, Britain has changed a lot in this time. 

Cheers

Chris

Censorship?

Just remember, the way you feel about Fox...is the way the next guy feels about CNN.

By their very nature, censors are perched on the very pinnacles of righteousness. They think. 

And that's how many censors felt about the JFKA research community in the years after 1963. The JFKA research community was presented as jackals trying to make money from the nation's misery....

Oh, and how about corporate social-media, and corporate-media shutting down the "debunked Wuhan Lab virus leak" stories in 2020? 

Censorship is always a bad idea, with a few exceptions in bona fide wartime. I am talking WWII. 

The real question is: Youtube, Twitter, Google et al have become to de facto national town squares.

The big question: How can we stop censorship? It is here already, through de-platforming, and especially search algorithms. 

One guy I follow on Youtube, actually has an a-political show. One day his viewership cut in half. Overnight. An algorithm was changed, and he was shunted lower in the search totem pole.  That was by happenstance. Imagine what can happen with a little nudge. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Censorship?

Just remember, the way you feel about Fox...is the way the next guy feels about CNN.

By their very nature, censors are perched on the very pinnacles of righteousness. They think. 

And that's how many censors felt about the JFKA research community in the years after 1963. The JFKA research community was presented as jackals trying to make money from the nation's misery....

Oh, and how about corporate social-media, and corporate-media shutting down the "debunked Wuhan Lab virus leak" stories in 2020? 

Censorship is always a bad idea, with a few exceptions in bona fide wartime. I am talking WWII. 

The real question is: Youtube, Twitter, Google et al have become to de facto national town squares.

The big question: How can we stop censorship? It is here already, through de-platforming, and especially search algorithms. 

One guy I follow on Youtube, actually has an a-political show. One day his viewership cut in half. Overnight. An algorithm was changed, and he was shunted lower in the search totem pole.  That was by happenstance. Imagine what can happen with a little nudge. 

 

 

 

 

I don’t know if you’ve had chance to listen to this podcast which Youtube removed? 

It’s a very open dialogue on the pandemic and the ‘lab leak’ is now the dominant theory. 
 

I am with you here on censorship. The only way it can be undone is by society realising that consent sits with them, that we are free to take the streets in protest and reject any draconian measures suggested by our political elite. At which point they become powerless. 
 

This pandemic is the gateway to some very frightening stuff. The Welcome Leap stuff is so wrong.

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1649-whitney-webb-dissects-the-wellcome-leap-into-transhumanism/
 

Also did you see the link a couple of posts back about the state of DC permitting themselves to vaccinate children without their parents knowing or consenting? To me that paves the way for all sorts of tech to be implanted in children and an unparalleled level of social conditioning and state control. 
Just like Huxley said, people would live in servitude and be happy about it. The threat of tyranny coming from a mix of propaganda and pharmacological means. If anyone thinks I am one flew over the cuckoo’s nest for suggesting this, take a look at the tech DARPA and co have developed and what can be done with it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2016/mar/24/magneto-remotely-controls-brain-and-behaviour


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/brain-magnets-decrease-faith-god-religion-immigrants-a6695291.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

In my view (which is only my view, and not proven fact) governments do not have malicious or ulterior plans regarding vaccines. I think vaccines are very useful. 

It is interesting that the US went through the serious 1957-8 flu season with hardly a skip. According to US CDC, about 70,000 to 116,000 people died in the United States.  Life went on. 

That said, let people speak their views, on all sides.  

That a thoughtful fellow like Bret Weinstein can be shut down is a crime. 

There appears to be moves afoot to control the last tiny corners of non-corporate news and information. Americans are being trained to fear domestic subversives and terrorists.

There is an old joke, that "nothing is more fake than a reality TV show."

Has corporate news become a Reality TV Show? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

In my view (which is only my view, and not proven fact) governments do not have malicious or ulterior plans regarding vaccines. I think vaccines are very useful. 

https://survivalblog.science.blog/2021/05/19/vaccines-turn-recipients-into-zombies/
 

its not “governments” doing this. This is the classic push for global government formerly called the new world order. Again, the technology is out of control and if this goes the way central bankers want, humanity is in deep trouble as far as existing with the traditional powers of creativity, original thought, and the liberty to pursue happiness. 

As far as censorship goes, its hard for me to imagine anyone defending that. We are talking about people being removed from social media for reporting facts, not domestic terrorism. The CDC and FDA are captured agencies, it is not difficult to see this at this point. The history of vaccines is very different than what is presented to the public. I mean, google is literally invested in vaccines and they are censoring loads of information, no conflict there? Seriously, we went from two weeks to flatten the curve to, the government is knocking on your door and spending $4 billion on an information war to promote an experimental product they have a patent for (moderna, usgov). This is not about health.

 

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/22/google-censorship-due-to-vaccine-investment.aspx?ui=f15ab20a4fdd6880671c85e576ed09bb765ec49e4da52b670e4fa63050b20122&sd=20210405&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20210722_HL2&mid=DM942781&rid=1215251279

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

In my view (which is only my view, and not proven fact) governments do not have malicious or ulterior plans regarding vaccines. I think vaccines are very useful. 

It is interesting that the US went through the serious 1957-8 flu season with hardly a skip. According to US CDC, about 70,000 to 116,000 people died in the United States.  Life went on. 

That said, let people speak their views, on all sides.  

That a thoughtful fellow like Bret Weinstein can be shut down is a crime. 

There appears to be moves afoot to control the last tiny corners of non-corporate news and information. Americans are being trained to fear domestic subversives and terrorists.

There is an old joke, that "nothing is more fake than a reality TV show."

Has corporate news become a Reality TV Show? 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 


 

Hi Benjamin, 

It’s easy to see there is a 100% a huge financial racket worth potentially trillions longterm, it works the same way as wars. But, we do have the Rockefeller Foundations annual meeting minutes chasing up work on innoculations that reduce fertility and their previous preoccupation with eugenics (Population Council). We have the Galton Institute (previously the Eugenics society). We have the WHO working in collaboration with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on fertility reducing vaccines in previous decades (and Norplant), then things go quiet. Most of that is earlier in this thread. The trail does run dry a bit. As I mentioned above, the very people who are the biggest proponents of the vaccine, insisting everyone needs it to save lives, are also advocates of population control. That’s an odd stance. You want less people on the planet but, you want to keep everyone alive. 🤷‍♂️

 

A lot of sceptics are going down the depopulation route, I can’t say with any certainty that’s the case but, there is past form. TBH if that were your agenda you might want to use something safe to get everyone on board with regular vaccines, before tinkering with human biology etc. But, I’d only be guessing. There is no recourse and perfect plausible deniability in the case if these do have mid or long term adverse affects. We are seeing plenty if you compare them other vaccines which most of the population has. In fact it would appear these are more dangerous than all the others combined. Some might say its an acceptable risk but, with 5k+ vaccine deaths in the USA from the Covid jabs and the self reporting system that Harvard’s 2016 study pointed out will have a real figure to the power of 10 (50k), how does the risk / cost analysis sit? Nobody knows the M-RNA mid or long term results, previous testing didn’t go well. 

We have politicians advocating things like putting lithium in drinking water, or sectioning people under the mental heath act if they don’t want a jab, and nobody is worried... 🙈
 

If I am forecasting anything, its this: 

 

-Jabs forever on a regular basis with the state mandating what we need, enormous pressure to have them until society is apathetical, having their will broken. This steps us into transhumanism with nano tech and whatever else the media and these philanthropic foundations will tell us we need. The Nuremburg Code will be superseded by new laws. People will think it makes sense. Have a look at the video above regarding Welcome Leap.
- The vaccine passport or biometric ID walks us into full blow technocracy with a social credit score integrated like China. We’ll have no control, they’ll be two classes, us and them. 
- Any remnants or dying embers of democracy will quickly be a distant memory, nothing will need to be censored, as we won’t even think thoughts that lead us that way after a short time. 
 

Cheers

 

Chris
 

PS I think there was a flu in the 1960’s too with similar numbers to Covid, as well as the 50’s. Though both of those actually recorded causes of death properly, taking co-morbidities into account. 
 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

https://survivalblog.science.blog/2021/05/19/vaccines-turn-recipients-into-zombies/
 

its not “governments” doing this. This is the classic push for global government formerly called the new world order. Again, the technology is out of control and if this goes the way central bankers want, humanity is in deep trouble as far as existing with the traditional powers of creativity, original thought, and the liberty to pursue happiness. 

As far as censorship goes, its hard for me to imagine anyone defending that. We are talking about people being removed from social media for reporting facts, not domestic terrorism. The CDC and FDA are captured agencies, it is not difficult to see this at this point. The history of vaccines is very different than what is presented to the public. I mean, google is literally invested in vaccines and they are censoring loads of information, no conflict there? Seriously, we went from two weeks to flatten the curve to, the government is knocking on your door and spending $4 billion on an information war to promote an experimental product they have a patent for (moderna, usgov). This is not about health.

 

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/22/google-censorship-due-to-vaccine-investment.aspx?ui=f15ab20a4fdd6880671c85e576ed09bb765ec49e4da52b670e4fa63050b20122&sd=20210405&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20210722_HL2&mid=DM942781&rid=1215251279

 

Yep, it really isn’t about health at all, or saving lives.  It amazes me all these people thinking how clever Klaus Schwabb and the World Economic Forum are so clever, they can see into the future. Nobody thinks the Rockefeller ‘LockStep’ or the Gates/WHO ‘Event 201’ is anything more than a lucky coincidence. It’s like the public are children at a magic show. 
 

And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.” 

 

April 27th 1961, John F Kennedy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris and Dennis:

I disagree on the dangers of vaccines, but we all agree censorship is never an option.

If people have suspicions about the true purpose of vaccines, then let's hear it out. 

As I said, my view is my view, not a proven fact. 

It would help if governments (and affiliated media) had not lied so persistently that now large fractions of the populations trust nothing a government says. 

Probably Fauci needs to go. He has misled people on how gain-of-function research was funded in the Wuhan Lab, then downplayed the probable reality the virus escaped from the lab. So we know he dissembles. So he says the vaccines are safe. This is your government spokesman? 

There are days I wish lithium was in the drinking water. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Chris and Dennis:

I disagree on the dangers of vaccines, but we all agree censorship is never an option.

If people have suspicions about the true purpose of vaccines, then let's hear it out. 

As I said, my view is my view, not a proven fact. 

It would help if governments (and affiliated media) had not lied so persistently that now large fractions of the populations trust nothing a government says. 

Probably Fauci needs to go. He has misled people on how gain-of-function research was funded in the Wuhan Lab, then downplayed the probable reality the virus escaped from the lab. So we know he dissembles. So he says the vaccines are safe. This is your government spokesman? 

There are days I wish lithium was in the drinking water. :)

 

 

Same here really, its circumstantial and we know we have been lied to. We are not privy to what goes on behind closed doors, so, just like with the JFKA we can only piece bits together to build a picture. My mantra is always the same, work back from the outcome, follow the money, see who benefits. Time will give us a clear picture but, I think that’s built into any mass deception of the public, it’s always a ‘fait accompli’. By the time we figure it out, it’s too late. I do think this is one that society can’t afford to be wrong on. 
 

Fauci has lied about masks too, he has also lied about immunity. Really, in a just world there would be a full enquiry into this gain of function research and why US interests were doing things that likely contravene the bio warfare convention of 1989. The US outsourced that. The problem is, it likely all goes back to the security apparatus and the naughty stuff that was going on at Fort Dietrich. Despite her discrediting publicly (usual smear), I do believe Mikovits and RFK Jr on this. 


The cost of me being wrong is people in my social circle will only want to talk about girls, fishing and football. The cost of everyone else being wrong is catastrophic for the future. I hope Dennis and I are not coming across as combative, as we’d like an open dialogue and i’d be glad to be wrong. 
 

Lithium - LOL - Picturing those guys walking in a circle in “Midnight Express”. It occurred to me that life was simpler when I didn’t take an interest in history, politics and psychology. 
 

Cheers

 

Chris
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...