The COVID-19 Scamdemic, Part 1: The Hard Road To A New World Order


COVID-19 Scamdemic Pt 1

 

I’m about to cross post a ZeroHedge article entitled, “The COVID-19 Scamdemic, Part 1: The Hard Road To A New World Order”. The information you are about to read has typically been consigned to the realm of Conspiracy Theory – suggesting made-up from little factoids of disputed accuracy. The author Iain Davis does an excellent job of linking source information that in my opinion transforms theory to Conspiracy Fact. TAKE A GANDER AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

 

JRH 8/30/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

***************************

The COVID-19 Scamdemic, Part 1: The Hard Road To A New World Order

 

Posted by Tyler Durden

 08/29/2020 – 00:00

 Authored by Iain Davis via In This Together blog,

ZeroHedge

 

Among many similar globalist states, The UK State is a public-private partnership between government, financial institutions, multinational corporations, global think tanks, and well funded third sector organisations, such as so called non governmental organisations (NGO’s) and large international charities.

 

Coronavirus

 

Through a labyrinthine structure of direct funding, grant making and philanthropy, the UK State is a cohesive globalist organisation that works with selected academics, scientific institutions and mainstream media (MSM) outlets to advance a tightly controlled, predetermined narrative.

 

This designed consensus serves the interests and global ambitions of a tiny group of disproportionately wealthy people.

 

MSM News Brainwashing

 

This group of parasites, often misleadingly referred to as the “elite,” exploit all humanity for their own gain and to consolidate and enhance their power. They control the money supply and the global debt, which is a debt owed to them.

 

Human beings are forced to pay tax which, via government procurement, flows directly to the private corporations they own. War, security, infrastructure projects, education and health care provide profits and are used by the parasite class to socially engineer society.

 

Globally, they fund all political parties, with any realistic chance of gaining power, they own the MSM and spend billions lobbying policy makers.

 

Through think tanks and the actions of “independent” political activists, such as the FPAction Network, they directly fund political campaigns in exchange for the politician’s loyalty to them, not to the electorate.

 

Through their tax exempt grant making foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), they control the scientific, medical and academic orthodoxy.

 

BMGF photo

 

This global network of oligarchs is moving towards the final stages of its long held plan to construct a single global system of governance. Often referred to as the New World Order (NWO), it is a collaboration between supranational political organisations, like the United Nations and the European Union, controlled scientific authorities, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), global financial institutions, including the World Bank, IMF, ECB and Bank for International Settlements (BIS), globalist organisations like the World Economic Forum (WEF), NGO’s like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and policy making thinks tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission.

 

The UK State is one, prominent tentacle of the emerging global governance system. It has capitalised on the COVID 19 crisis to create the conditions for a new global economic and political model. While COVID 19 appears to be a nasty strain of the common coronavirus, in Part 2 we will discuss how the UK State has spun a fake narrative about the disease to further the interests of its globalist, oligarch masters. Managing a response to a pandemic is merely the deceptive justification for the planned re-engineering of society.

 

In partnership with Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the BMGF, the WEF were chief architects of Event 201 which plotted, in quite precise detail, the global lockdown and the world’s media response to a global coronavirus pandemic. Event 201 was staged merely a matter of months before a global coronavirus pandemic broke out. Both the government lockdown and MSM response have proceeded exactly as they predicted.

To say this is all just a coincidence, and not worthy of further scrutiny, is beyond obtuse. The WEF’s extensive and detailed COVID 19 Action Platform was up and running on March 12th 2020. The day after the WHO declared a global COVID 19 pandemic.

 

It is clear from the WEF’s own words, that they see COVID 19 as a fantastic opportunity. They state:

 

The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making…….As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.”

 

This is a proposal for global governance which supersedes national sovereignty. It is as simple as that.

 

It is remarkable that there are still so many who accuse any who point to this long standing New World Order plan, extensively documented and spoken about by political leaders for generations, of being so called conspiracy theorists. One wonders if these people can read.

 

lbry.tv VIDEO: Political Leaders Talk About The New World Order

https://open.lbry.com/@InThisTogether:d/Political-Leaders-And-The-New-World-Order:d

 

[Posted by @InThisTogether

June 3rd, 2020

 

This is a clipped version of my irreverent New World Order video:

 

https://lbry.tv/@InThisTogether:d/The-New-World-Order-Is-A-Thing-8xGbF3AoZbM-0:7

 

Here I focus solely on the some of the many statements made by political leaders around the world about the New World Order.

 

So the next time someone says the New World Order doesn’t exist. Show them this.

 

Subscribe to In This Together here: https://lbry.tv/@InThisTogether:d]

 

Referencing the COVID 19 opportunities, one of the founders, and current executive chairman, of the WEF Klaus Schwab recently wrote:

 

A sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable. To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.

 

Capitalism requires a reset because the model of closed shop crony capitalism, operated by the global parasite class for centuries, has reached the limits of growth. Therefore they need to create a new economic paradigm (the Great Reset) both to further centralise and consolidate their power and to fix their failing business model.

 

Crony Capitalism- People, Government & Investgroups

 

Following the 2008 banking collapse, while the people were forced to suffer austerity to bail out the banks with a form of highly selective crony socialism, the parasite class simply carried on piling up the debt.

 

In the Basel Capital Accords III, supposedly designed to stop the wild market speculations of banks which caused the collapse, they effectively reduced the liquidity (capital reserve) requirements for banks, allowing them to lend even more.

 

This process of allowing banks to create FIAT currency out of nothing has inevitably led to a global debt of approximately $260 trillion, which is more than three times the size of the planets GDP.

 

However, this is small potatoes compared to the scale of the financial products derivatives market. Estimated to be somewhere between $600 trillion to more than $1 quadrillion. While some say this is only the notional amount of the debt tied up in derivative contracts, the fact remains this is all debt.

 

Cumulatively, there isn’t enough productivity on Earth even to service the interest on these debts, let alone pay them. Ultimately this is debt owed to the oligarchs who control the world’s system of central banks. It is a Mickey Mouse system allowing monopolists to seize assets using their own funny money.

 

While the power to create all FIAT currency, out of nothing but debt creation, has afforded them immense economic and political control, 2008 demonstrated that their usury fraud can, and certainly will, collapse. Hence the Great Reset. Responding to a pandemic, or saving lives, has nothing to do with it.

 

The process of transition, laid out by the WEF as the Great Reset, builds upon the sustainable development goals of the U.N’s Agenda 2030. Founded upon the generational eugenicist ideology of the NWO oligarchs, the new global governance system will be a technocracy.

 

While Technocracy, rule by technocrats appointed or elected for their particular expertise, may sound appealing to some, the model proposed relies upon the destruction of nations states to be replaced by a distant global technocratic order that serves only the interests of its founding oligarchs and financial benefactors.

 

This technocratic system was outlined in 1974 by former US ambassador Richard N. Gardner, member of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, in his article The Hard Road To World Order:

 

Never has there been such widespread recognition by the world’s intellectual leadership of the necessity for cooperation and planning on a truly global basis. Never has there been such an extraordinary growth in the constructive potential of transnational private organizations – not just multinational corporations but international associations of every kind in which like-minded persons around the world weave effective patterns of global action…

 

 

The hope for the foreseeable future lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction… but rather in… inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis… providing methods for changing the law and enforcing it as it changes and developing the perception of common interests…

 

In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down …

 

…but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.

 

The institutions of limited jurisdiction, such as the IPCC and WHO, are already in place directing national government policy across the world. In Britain, it is the role of the UK State to deliver the obligatory policy changes in order to erode national sovereignty and create the global governance technocracy. All globalist states are essentially unconstitutional and treasonous.

 

The common interest, determined by the technocrat class at the behest of their corporate oligarch paymasters, is currently replacing individual liberties and freedoms. The human being is becoming little more than a unit to be managed and directed and, where necessary, disposed of.

 

Inalienable human rights are being ignored utterly in pursuit of the common interest.

 

The global COVID 19 crisis is a catalysing event which has been misused to bring about the Great Reset. In order to convince the people to comply with their orders, the UK State has inculcated the population into a state of fear.

 

States around the world have practised social engineering using deception, by proselytising an unquestioning faith in an illusory form of science (scientism), behaviour modification, unlawful regulation and propaganda. They have used their obedient MSM to convince their peoples that the threat of COVID 19 is significantly greater than it actually is.

 

In Part 2 we will focus on the deception of the UK State. However, the same can be said for all other globalist states that have similarly responded to the claimed pandemic.

 

COVID 19 has been exploited in order to replace our inalienable human rights with an enforced obligation to obey public health orders. Public health has become biosecurity and there is no longer any such thing as a healthy human being. All humans are now biohazards and biohazards must be controlled or removed from society for the common good.

 

With the British people living in unwarranted fear, the UK State has been able to introduce draconian anti-democratic (quite literally) legislation.

 

In other circumstances this would have been impossible without significant revolt. Terrorising the public was essential to convince them to believe that the State had to remove all their rights and freedoms in order to keep them safe.

 

Initially deceiving the public that the “emergency measures” would be temporary, further behaviour modification was then used to force people to comply with a lengthening list of totalitarian regulations. The objective was to move people towards passively accepting the dictatorship of a surveillance state re-branded as “the new normal.” Thus far, it appears most people have been sufficiently frightened to meekly accept their enslavement.

 

Throughout the Great Reset transition, the public face of the globalist project has been Bill Gates. However, while Gates has used his wealth to seize control of global public health policy, he is just the current front man for World Order 2.0. It is the technological possibilities presented by the 4th Industrial Revolution which the architects of the world order are capitalising upon.

 

Bill Gates & Vaccinations

 

For example, while there is no evidence that COVID 19 can be spread by handling cash, the MSM have repeatedly floated the idea. This is no surprise. the BBC are among the many media organisations directly funded by the BMGF.

 

Pilot schemes, such as the BMGF backed West African Wellness Pass, are already underway. By linking biometric identification, along the lines of the BMGF funded, Rockefeller and U.N backed ID 2020, with cashless payment systems, all transactions can be centrally controlled in the rapidly approaching cashless society.

 

When your biometric identity includes your vaccine immunity status, there will be no necessity to legislate to make vaccines “compulsory.” Thus avoiding any contentious public debate. As long as you fully comply with your orders, you will be allowed controlled access to social and economic activity.

 

Systems like immunity passport and vaccine certificates will be used to control freedom of movement, the right to work and to access services and the community. As described by world order spokesman Bill Gates:

 

Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”

 

While vaccines may not be compulsory you won’t realistically be able to participate in society, employment, run a business or receive benefits, without the appropriate vaccine or immunity status.

 

The BMGF have already invested more than $21 million in an MIT project to create a microneedle vaccine delivery system that will inject a reactive die under the recipients skin which can then be scanned by a reader. This pattern will act like an indelible bar code tattoo, enabling the global authorities to monitor and control your whereabouts and behaviour.

 

The New Zealand State has already decided to remove people from their homes and place them in quarantine facilities (detention centres controlled by the military).

 

Militarized State Enforcement

 

With an estimated population of 5 million and just 22 alleged deaths from COVID 19 in the entire country (a population mortality risk of 0.0004%), and no deaths at all for nearly three months, clearly these measures are not a response to any genuine threat from COVID 19.

 

Having complete control over the testing and attribution of disease status affords the biosecurity State the power to potentially remove and detain its political enemies and dissenters without trial. Those ordered to enforce biosecurity, in the “new normal,” have exactly the same degree of authoritarian power that was invested in similar rights abusers such as the Gestapo and the Stasi. Does history ever teach us anything?

 

This quarantine policy in New Zealand is designed to maintain the level of fear and accustom the population to dictatorship. It also appears to be a provocation that may encourage insurrection and revolt. With a monopoly on violence and the use of force, violent uprisings invariably benefit the authoritarian State. It allows them to claim legitimacy for an even more oppressive “crack down.”

 

Thus far, the global response to COVID 19 has deviated little from the Rockefeller’s suggested Lockstep scenario in their 2010 report Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development.

 

Like Event 201, this is another example of the quite extraordinary prescience of the people who form global governance policy. They can not only predict, in almost perfect detail, what the media will discover and report, but also nature itself.

 

Removing the “infected” from their homes and incarcerating them in detention centres mirrors the policy suggestion of Dr Michael Ryan from the WHO. While New Zealand is the first nominally democratic state to raid family homes and remove people by force, it certainly won’t be the last. The UK State has already given itself the power to do so in the Health Protections (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.

 

World economic activity will be administered by biosecurity States and based upon sustainable development goals. This new, centrally planned, global economy will be restricted only to permitted businesses.

 

Prior to his departure as governor of the Bank of England, in lockstep with the Great Reset, Mark Carney warned that companies that don’t follow the correct sustainability policies, “will go bankrupt without question.” In other words, lines of credit, without which business cannot hope to function, will be limited only to those who adopt the approved polices.

 

This new economy will have very limited employment. Carney’s successor Andrew Bailey has already stated that it would be important not to keep people in “unproductive jobs” and that job losses, as a result of the COVID 19 crisis, were inevitable.

 

They would not have been inevitable had globalist State’s, like the UK, not responded to the crisis by shutting down the world’s productive economy.

 

The preposterous spin of the bankers and carefully chosen economists that the UK will simply bounce back from an unprecedented 20% drop in GDP is absurd. With official UK unemployment of 2.7 million, more than doubling in a single year, these numbers are merely the tip of a very large, looming iceberg.

 

There are currently an additional estimated 7.8 million British workers furloughed. That scheme is due to end in a couple of months. The management consultancy firm McKinsey & Company estimate that 7.6 million UK jobs are at risk.

 

Boy wants Dad to get job back

 

This will, as ever, disproportionately impact the lowest paid, with analysis suggesting that more than 50% of those at risk of unemployment are already in jobs paying less than £10 per hour.

 

These are the unproductive jobs and livelihoods Bailey wants to get rid of. Across Europe and the Americas staggering levels of unemployment are seemingly unavoidable. It is not unreasonable to envisage at least 6 million long term unemployed in the UK. With the same pattern common to many developed nations, the social, economic and health impacts of this are almost beyond comprehension.

 

Many have long been warning, that the toll taken by the Lockdown response to the supposed COVID 19 pandemic will be far worse than the disease itself. This awful prospect is becoming increasingly apparent.

 

There is no reason to believe official UK COVID 19 statistics, something we’ll discuss in Part 2. However, even if we accept that more than 41,000 people have died as a direct result of COVID 19, this sad loss is likely to be relatively inconsequential compared to the loss of life as a direct result of the UK State’s Lockdown policy.

 

It is important to recognise that the global lockdown response was a political choice made to create the economic condition for the Great Reset. It was not unavoidable, and there is no evidence that lockdowns make any difference to COVID 19 mortality. South Korea, Japan and Sweden did not impose full lockdowns and all have better COVID 19 outcomes that the UK.

 

Research by the UK Department of Health, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the government’s Actuary Department and the UK Home Office estimates that 200,000 people could die as a result of re-orientating the NHS, to treat COVID 19 and little else, and from the economic effects of Lockdown polices. Unfortunately, this “worst case” scenario appears conservative.

 

An example of the derisory “scientism” used to terrorise the population, in April the University of Glasgow published a study estimating average years of life lost (YLL) for individuals who allegedly died from COVID 19. Saying these were alleged deaths does not imply that no one died from COVID 19, only that we really have no idea how many.

 

Nonetheless, using quite bizarre methodology, the Glasgow researchers managed to calculate that the median YYL due to COVID 19 was 13 years for men and 11 years for women. This study was based upon analysis of the outbreak in Italy, but was cited by the UK MSM to scare the British. More than 59% of supposed COVID 19 decedents in Italy were over 80 years old.

 

Current median life expectancy in the UK is 80 years for males and 83 years for females. Nearly 60% of those who have died from COVID 19 in the UK were over 80 years old and 20% were over 90 years old.

 

Analysis from the National Records of Scotland (NRS) shows that median age of death, supposedly from COVID 19, was 81 for men and 85 for woman. Statistically indistinguishable from quite normal mortality.

 

The University of Glasgow researchers are funded by the Wellcome Trust who are the tax exempt philanthropic foundation of the multinational pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. The University of Glasgow are also grant recipients of the COVID 19 Therapeutics Accelerator established by the Wellcome Trust, Mastercard and the BMGF.

 

The Wellcome Trust and the BMGF want the world to be vaccinated with their experimental COVID 19 vaccines. Despite the fact that decades of trying have failed to produce a successful vaccine against SARS, or indeed for any coronavirus strain, and that usually vaccine development takes at least 10 years, GSK and the BMGF are among those who, for some apparently inexplicable reason, are confident they can produce a successful vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 in a matter of months.

 

Obviously there is a huge conflict of financial interest at the heart of the University of Glasgow’s spurious claims about YLL’s. Pointing out this fact makes you a conspiracy theorist. Though ignoring it requires either a considerable degree of gullibility or a wilful intent to deceive.

 

Pharma Funding (Bribes)

 

Between 2001 and 2016 economic and social deprivation in England consistently accounted for a genuinely alarming 9.3 year average reduced life expectancy (YLL’s) for males and, by 2016, shortened women’s lives by 7.4 years. The economic devastation that will be wrought by the entirely unnecessary Lockdown policy of the UK State, and others, measured in YLL’s, will dwarf those lost to COVID 19.

 

This is the price we will all pay for the parasite class’ determination to bring about the Great Reset and change the world’s economy and society to one centrally planned and controlled absolutely by them. They are currently spending billions globally on propaganda to convince us to accept their “new normal.”

 

They require our consent if their plans are going to work. This means, in order to scupper them, all we need to do is refuse to comply. While peaceful protest is an important unifying right, ultimately it is what we do every day that will make the difference. There is a nasty, fascist authoritarianism building in the UK, and elsewhere. Yet all we need to do in order to defeat it is refuse, en masse, to follow its orders.

 

Unfortunately, the UK State are among those throwing everything at convincing us to believe their frankly ridiculous, scientifically illiterate, COVID 19 propaganda narrative. We only need wander to the local supermarket and witness the faceless, muzzled majority to know the deception is working.

 

We are faced with an existential choice. We can either give up any childish pretensions that we live in a free and open democratic society that values liberty and plurality of opinion, and accept the fascist dictatorial rule of a global technocratic parasite, or we can exercise conscious resistance and refuse to comply with the orders of the State.

 

In Part 2, we will dissect the mechanism of the UK State’s scamdemic. While Lockdown policies originate at a global level, by looking at how the UK State has implemented them, and the deception they have used to convince the public to accept them, the true nature of the scamdemic can be revealed.

_______________________________

Copyright ©2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD

 

Leftist Censors to Support Communist Line


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© April 26, 2020

 

A FEE article points that Youtube owned by Google who is owned by Alphabet is preparing to censor any video that does not tow the Communist World Health Organization (WHO) line on COVID-19. FEE author Dan Sanchez points impending Youtube censorship is something you can nothing about because it is a privately owned company. Meaning the government can’t censor Youtube, but Youtube can censor whomever they please. Even if that means favoring Communist propaganda over truth.

 

YOU – a private citizen – can abandon Youtube during censorship to more friendly video platforms such as Vimeo, Dailymotion, DTube, BitChute, Brighteon, Liveleak, etc.

 

I’m also cross posting an Activist Post article that not only touches on Youtube censorship but examines some of the WHO’s Liberty-robbing demands (e.g. no alcohol during COVID), WHO bad-science idiocy to support Communist China, local police persecuting teenager for posting their Instagram experience on Instagram AND Harvard upset closed Public Schools are allowing homeschooled students to bypass Leftist-society brainwashing.

 

JRH 4/26/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

****************************

YouTube to Ban Content That Contradicts WHO on COVID-19, Despite the UN Agency’s Catastrophic Track Record of Misinformation

The policy represents a betrayal of the pioneering platform’s founding principles.

 

Susan Wojcicki – Image credit: TechCrunch on Flickr | CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)

 

By Dan Sanchez

April 23, 2020

Foundation for Economic Education

 

Soon, YouTubers will be silenced if they don’t agree with the United Nations on public health. As The Verdict reports:

 

YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations, according to CEO Susan Wojcicki.

 

Wojcicki announced the policy on CNN on Sunday. WHO is an agency of the UN, charged with overseeing global public health. The Verdict report continues:

 

Wojcicki said that the Google-owned video streaming platform would be “removing information that is problematic”.

 

She told host Brian Stelter that this would include “anything that is medically unsubstantiated”.

 

“So people saying ‘take vitamin C; take turmeric, we’ll cure you’, those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy,” she said.

 

“Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”

 

While the decision has been welcomed by many, some have accused the streaming giant of censorship.

 

To be clear, for American YouTubers, this kind of censorship is not a violation of their constitutional right of free speech. The First Amendment protects citizens against government censorship, and YouTube is a private platform. Were the US government to force the private owners of YouTube to continue broadcasting certain videos against their will, that would be much more a violation of the First Amendment.

 

While YouTube’s decision is not unconstitutional, it is unwise, exhibiting far too much deference to central authority in general and to WHO especially.

 

WHO’s Track Record on the Issue

 

The World Health Organization is far from infallible. Its handling of information throughout the coronavirus emergency has been a long string of failures. As policy analyst Ross Marchand has recounted here on FEE last week, WHO failed to raise the alarm as the coronavirus rapidly spread through China during the crucial early period of the global crisis in January of this year. Then, as Marchand wrote:

 

The global bureaucracy uncritically reported that Chinese authorities had seen “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus” on January 14, just one day after acknowledging the first case outside of China (in Thailand). WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for his “political commitment” and “political leadership” despite these repeated, reprehensible attempts to keep the world in the dark about the coronavirus.

 

President Donald Trump recently announced that the US would cease its funding of WHO over its many coronavirus-related failures.

 

And it is not just American conservatives who have been critical. As FEE’s Jon Miltimore wrote a month ago:

 

Our World in Data, an online publication based at the University of Oxford, announced on Tuesday that it had stopped relying on World Health Organization (WHO) data for its models, citing errors and other factors.

 

This raises an interesting question: would YouTube censor Oxford if it posted a video on the coronavirus issue with recommendations based on data that contradicts WHO’s?

 

As Miltimore wrote, “Recent reports suggest US intelligence agencies relied heavily on WHO in its national assessment of the COVID-19 threat.”

 

This is gravely concerning because bad information leads to bad policies. This is true not only for government policy (like mayors, governors, and heads of state deciding to largely shut down the economy in their jurisdiction), but for the policies of private decision-makers like doctors, business-owners, and individuals making decisions about the health and overall lives of themselves and their families.

 

Indeed, WHO’s misinformation early in the crisis squandered the most precious part of the world’s prep time, which likely crippled the public’s responses and may have cost many lives.

 

YouTube risks compounding that tragedy by now insisting that the public’s response to the coronavirus emergency conforms even more strictly with WHO’s dubious pronouncements. Wojcicki wants to protect WHO’s recommendations from contradiction. But WHO’s recommendations are necessarily informed by WHO’s information, which has proven to be extremely suspect. Sheltering untrustworthy pronouncements risks amplifying their dangerous influence.

 

Why Censorship Is Counter-Productive

 

So, it is ironic that YouTube justifies this policy in the name of protecting the public from dangerous misinformation.

 

It is true that many videos contradicting official pronouncements are themselves full of medical quackery and other misleading falsehoods. But, censorship is the worst way to combat them.

 

For one, censorship can actually boost the perceived credibility of an untruth. Believers interpret it as validation: evidence that they are onto a truth that is feared by the powers-that-be. And they use that interpretation as a powerful selling point in their underground evangelism.

 

Censorship also insulates falsehoods from debunking, allowing them to circulate largely uncriticized in the dark corners of public discourse.

 

This makes censorship especially counterproductive because it is open-air debunking that is one of the most effective ways to counter misinformation and bad ideas. As Justice Louis Brandeis expressed in a US Supreme Court opinion, the ideal remedy for bad speech, “is more speech, not enforced silence.”

 

Again, YouTube has a right to set the terms of service of its own website. But the general principle applies here as well: the truth has a much better fighting chance with a proliferation of competing voices than with inquisitorial efforts to circumscribe discourse within a narrow orthodoxy.

 

A Systematic Problem

 

Moreover, WHO’s track record of misinformation is not exceptional among government organizations in neither its degree of error nor in its disastrous impact. Governments and the experts they employ not only get things wrong but have frequently proven to be fundamentally wrong-headed on big questions.

 

To take another example in the realm of public health, it is increasingly widely recognized that the high-carb, low-fat diet recommendations, as depicted by the USDA’s “Food Pyramid,” and successfully promoted for decades to the population by the US government and the most respected authorities on dietary science and epidemiology, was basically backward. Science journalist Gary Taub tells the whole story of bad science, corrupt influence, and obtuse orthodoxy in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories.

 

Again, bad information leads to bad advice which leads to bad choices. So how much illness and even death was caused by generations of Americans uncritically swallowing “official” diet advice and by Americans largely only having one choice on the “menu” of diet advice?

 

The more we centralize decision-making and the management of actionable information, the wider the scope of the damage caused by any single error. But if we let a thousand errors bloom along with a thousand truths, any single error will be circumscribed in its damage and more likely to be corrected through experience and counter-argument.

 

Knowledge Problems

 

Champions of policies like YouTube’s like to cast the issue in simplistic terms: as a black-and-white battle between respectable experts and wild-eyed crackpots. But the issue is more complex than that.

 

It is just as often a matter of overweening technocrats making pronouncements on matters that are way beyond them in complexity, that involve factors that fall way outside their domain of expertise, and that drastically impact the lives of millions or even billions. For example: a few dozen epidemiologists, with limited understanding of economics and a great many other relevant disciplines, holding sway over whole economies.

 

It is also a matter of dissenting experts being silenced along with the actual crackpots.

 

And, perhaps most fundamentally, it is a matter of weakening the individual’s ability to discern between truth and falsehood, good advice and bad, by denying them the responsibility and practice of doing so in the first place—of turning self-reliant, free men and women into irresponsible wards to be led by the nose like dumb, deferential livestock by their “expert” caretakers.

 

That is not where we are, but that is the direction that the rigid enforcement of centralized orthodoxies tends toward.

 

A Challenge

 

Let’s choose a different direction. YouTube, do better. Trust your users more. Treat them like human beings with all the capacities for learning, growth, discourse, and cooperation that are the distinctive glories of being human.

 

After all, that is what made you great in the first place. Your very name is derived from your original faith in the individual. YouTube (a crowd-sourced, individual-driven, pluralistic platform) is what made the boob tube (centralized, institutionalized, and homogenizing broadcast television) largely obsolete. As such, you had a starring role in the internet’s democratization of information and learning.

 

Don’t betray that legacy. Not now. Not when we need open platforms for the free flow of information and discourse more than ever.

 

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor of FEE.org.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Coronavirus Response: Ban Alcohol, Free Speech, and Homeschooling (This Week’s Dystopian News)

 

Freedom Gagged

 

By Simon Black, Sovereign Man

April 24, 2020

Activist Post

 

For this week’s round-up of articles, we’re taking a look at some of the things the government thinks should be banned in response to coronavirus.

 

WHO urges governments to ban alcohol during lockdown

 

Last week we talked about how the World Health Organization was coming for your sick family members.

 

This week, they want your booze.

 

WHO says that alcohol compromises the immune system. And since we are fighting a virus, they think that prohibition is necessary.

 

In fact, alcohol restrictions can be justified by governments for the same reason coronavirus lockdowns are needed.

 

WHO notes that even in good times, alcohol is the cause of major health issues, addiction, and death. Alcohol accounts for 3 million deaths per year worldwide– far more than the coronavirus.

 

So it almost seems like WHO’s argument for banning alcohol has little to do with the coronavirus.

 

If it’s all about good health and saving lives, why not mandate a WHO-approved diet and exercise regimen for the masses as well? Why not ban sugar while they’re at it?

 

Where does the madness stop?

 

Click here to read the full story.

 

Not that you can disagree with the WHO anyhow…

 

Speaking of which, it’s difficult to even disagree with the WHO anymore; YouTube’s CEO indicated yesterday that her video platform would delete any content that goes against official WHO guidance.

 

Specifically she told CNN: “Anything that goes against WHO recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”

 

Bear in mind that the WHO was totally incompetent, especially in the early days of this pandemic. Here’s a quick review:

 

December 31: China first notifies WHO of the outbreak

 

January 5: WHO “does not recommend any specific measures for travellers” and “advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China”

January 23: Even as China begins its lockdown of Wuhan and the virus spreads across Asia, WHO still insists “it is still too early to declare a PHEIC” [Public Health Emergency of International Concern].

January 30: WHO still “does not recommend any travel or trade restriction” and praises the Chinese government’s “commitment to transparency.”

February 27: After many countries began introducing travel restrictions, WHO lamented that these restrictions would lead to “unnecessary interference with international traffic, including negative repercussions on the tourism sector.”

March 11: After more than 100,000 cases in dozens of countries worldwide, WHO finally declares this a global pandemic.

Oh I almost forgot: the WHO is the same organization that made a brutal murderer– former Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe– one of its GOODWILL ambassadors! You can’t make this stuff up.

 

And now YouTube wants to ban content that disagrees with an organization that is corrupt and incompetent.

 

Click here to read the full story.

 

 

Police threaten arrest for Instagram post about coronavirus

 

Amyiah Cohoon is a high school sophomore who went on a band trip to Disney World in March.

 

When she came back home she developed a fever and dry cough and doctors “concluded that her symptoms matched those of COVID-19.”

 

Amyiah posted a picture from the Disney trip on Instagram with a caption telling her friends she had Covid-19 and would not be able to see anyone for a while she quarantined herself.

 

After a short stay in the hospital, Amyiah posted a picture from her stay, again with a caption that she was recovering from Covid-19.

 

The next day, a Sheriff’s Deputy knocked on the family’s door. He demanded that Amyiah delete the Instagram posts, or else he would cite the family for disorderly conduct and “start taking people to jail.”

 

The family offered to show the Deputy the documents from the hospital proving that doctors believed Amyiah had Covid-19. The Deputy was not interested.

 

He said the Sheriff told him to make sure the posts were deleted, because the county officially had no confirmed cases of Covid-19.

 

Intimidated, and threatened with jail, Amyiah compiled and deleted the posts.

 

Turns out it was the school superintendent who contacted the Sheriff about the Instagram post who claimed it was Amyiah’s “foolish means to get attention.”

 

Click here to read the lawsuit.

 

Harvard professor: parents can’t be trusted with their kids

 

With American schools closed, homeschooling is the new normal for many families. This trend was already increasing, and will probably be accelerated by fears of the continuing spread of coronavirus.

 

But a Harvard professor Elizabeth Bartholet, the faculty director of the Child Advocacy Program at the law school, is calling for a ban on homeschooling.

 

She says that homeschooling, “not only violates children’s right to a meaningful education and their right to be protected from potential child abuse, but may keep them from contributing positively to a democratic society.”

 

She adds that a large percentage of homeschool families are driven by conservative Christian beliefs, which she seems to think constitutes child abuse. . .

 

Professor Bartholet says that some parents are deliberately trying to keep their kids from the mainstream culture taught in schools which includes “democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints.”

 

Yep. She’s all about tolerance of other people’s viewpoints. As long as those viewpoints conform with her own. Otherwise she’s not tolerant.

 

It is hard to imagine that this is a real person, and not a caricature villain created by Ayn Rand.

 

Click here to read the full story.

 

Source: The Daily Bell

_______________________________

Leftist Censors to Support Communist Line

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© April 25, 2020

________________________________

YouTube to Ban Content That Contradicts WHO on COVID-19, Despite the UN Agency’s Catastrophic Track Record of Misinformation

 

ABOUT FEE

_______________________________

Coronavirus Response: Ban Alcohol, Free Speech, and Homeschooling (This Week’s Dystopian News)

 

Activist Post – ALTERNATIVE INDEPENDENT NEWS – Creative Commons 2019