Robert Malone’s Bleak Assessment of Where We are Headed

Compare this bleak assessment by Robert Malone to the fairy tale version of how government works that many of us learned in grade school. I wish I could disagree with Malone. I see no reason that any of these things are going to get any better, despite the fact that many intelligent and good-hearted people are out there fighting for free speech and government accountability.

Functionally, unlike either industry (market forces) or the military (failed wars), there are no external forces currently limiting the expansion of the dysfunctional, counterproductive and (frankly) parasitic behavior of today’s Executive branch. Legislative branch oversight has been emasculated by consent with lobbyists collectively clamping down the Burdizzo, and in 1984 the Judicial branch conceded its authority to serve as a functional check on Executive/administrative branch arrogance via the Supreme Court Chevron Deference decision. And like the Federal Reserve, the informal “fourth estate” (corporate media), which historically provided a separate and semi-autonomous oversight function, has also been captured by this permanent bureaucracy.

The administrative and deep state has been so successful in capturing and manipulating media and related communication (largely via CIA, FBI, CISA and intelligence community infiltration) that they are able to seamlessly deploy advanced modern propaganda, PsyWar technologies and financial giveaways to control all narratives and information which might otherwise cause the majority of the electorate to check their actions, and in this way they completely avoid accountability. The CIA, FBI, CISA and intelligence community have become enablers of administrative and deep state excesses and overreach. With this corrupted information ecosystem, there cannot be any accountability of the administrative and deep state. In cooperation with a variety of corporate and NGO partners via “public-private partnerships”, the executive branch has completely captured and co-opted all oversight mechanisms which could enable or enforce checks and balances. The “ballot box” is well on its way to being a mere inconvenience, because for the majority of voters the synthetic false reality projected by captured media is the only political “reality” they encounter.

This is how modern nation-states abruptly collapse. As one recent example, recall the history of the USSR and most of the former communist Eastern European states. Modern nation-states fail by suffocating under the weight of bloated unaccountable bureaucracies whose primary objectives are to serve and sustain themselves rather than to promote and defend the general welfare and security of the citizenry. The social contract is stomped into dust by the boot of an uncontrollably arrogant, authoritarian, self-serving bureaucracy...

Continue ReadingRobert Malone’s Bleak Assessment of Where We are Headed

Powerful Elite Colleges Refuse to Consider the Damage They Do Regarding Cancelation and Censorship

At The Free Press, Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott explore how it came to be that so many American Colleges have come to embrace canceling and censorship rather than free speech. Here is an excerpt from "How American Colleges Gave Birth to Cancel Culture: A new book shows how universities first embraced a system of social punishment that now pervades our everyday lives":

The First Amendment wasn’t created to protect the interests of the rich and powerful. After all, the moneyed and influential have historically been protected by their wealth and power. And the United States didn’t need a special right to protect the will of a majority—that’s what democratic votes are for.

In the end, the First Amendment is primarily needed to protect minority views, unpopular opinions, and the expression of those who clash with the ruling elite.

But on campus today, you’re likely to hear this argument turned entirely on its head—as if championing free speech is somehow doing the bidding of the powerful. But that’s only because academia doesn’t like to admit that it actually is extremely wealthy and influential itself, or that those who defend the status quo are defending an extraordinarily powerful American industry. . .

From a purely financial perspective, the higher education apparatus is among the wealthiest and most influential institutions in the world. But you wouldn’t know that from the way many in academia try to position themselves. Colleges and universities are far from the humble academic hubs they claim to be, but many in higher education have a hard time admitting it’s been a long while since they were the underdogs.

Academia’s free speech skepticism is part of a long history of powerful people undercutting the First Amendment. Given that elites seldom like limitations on their power (and particularly on their power to censor), it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the First Amendment was limited by judges and politicians from the very moment of its inception.

Continue ReadingPowerful Elite Colleges Refuse to Consider the Damage They Do Regarding Cancelation and Censorship

Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi Deliver the Latest Update Regarding Censorship in the US

I highly recommend this video if you'd like to get up to speed on many of the new and sophisticated ways your government is trying to regulate how you communicate with your fellow citizens. Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi have been intensely covering the "censorship industrial complex" for years. This is merely the latest chapter of a disturbing series of stories they have broken.

Continue ReadingGlenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi Deliver the Latest Update Regarding Censorship in the US

Censorship Doesn’t Fix “Bad” Ideas. It Merely Shoves the Discussion Underground

Greg Lukianoff explains that censorship, no matter how well intended it is, drives conversation into the shadows, where it festers. It isolates viewpoints away from the mainstream, detached from any interaction with opposing views, where participants experience a false consensus.  Where their reach on important topics exceeds their grasp.  Those who advocate for censorship to cure "bad" ideas, always makes the situation worse by emboldening the "bad" ideas. This is one of the ideas why censorship never works. 

[C]ensorship on one platform may lead to an increase in the amount of similar content on other platforms. This is the unintended consequence of heavy-handed moderation policies.

Social media censorship creates new ecosystems that are ripe for group polarization. As Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein explains in an essay on group polarization: “People who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion [with each other], to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm.”

For a vivid portrayal of how exclusion makes polarization, paranoia, and radicalism far worse, we highly recommend Andrew Callaghan’s documentary This Place Rules, which highlights some of the protests and personalities that played large or small roles in the run-up to, and day of, the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Callaghan has a grave warning about how badly attempts to censor can backfire: “When you take someone who talks about a deep state conspiracy to silence him and his followers and then you silence him and his followers it only really adds to his credibility,” he says in the film. When you’re dealing with people who believe there’s a conspiracy to shut them up, do absolutely nothing that looks anything like a conspiracy to shut them up.

Simply put, censorship doesn’t change people’s opinions. It encourages them to speak with people they already agree with, which makes political polarization even worse.

Continue ReadingCensorship Doesn’t Fix “Bad” Ideas. It Merely Shoves the Discussion Underground

FIRE Honors Mark Berkson for Defending his Colleague, Who was Fired for Being a Good Teacher

Erika López Prater, an art history professor at Hamline University, lost her teaching position after showing images of the Prophet Muhammad in class. While some faculty members and students called for Hamline to fire López Prater, professor of religion Mark Berkson defended the besieged professor in an essay published in The Oracle, Hamline’s student newspaper. For Berkson’s brave defense of academic freedom, FIRE presented him with the first-ever "Berkson Courageous Colleague Award" at this year's FIRE Faculty Network Conference.

I attended FIRE's faculty conference where Mark make his acceptance speech. His words inspired me and I hope they inspire you too.

An excerpt From Mark Berkson's Acceptance Speech:

I really appreciate the non partisan nature of fires work, their commitments to the principles that are there to protect everyone across the political spectrum are central. And there are times that I read a fire statement, and I go to learn more about the person they're defending. And I must admit, I sometimes say like . . . "Yuck!, I don't know, I don't know about that one, you know!' there are some really disturbing views [audience laughing]. And then, of course, I'm immediately reminded that not only must I extend the same protections, I seek to those with different views, but in a way that can often be difficult to see at the moment, we benefit from hearing those views.

And this occurs within every religious tradition I teach when we see how much is revealed when we juxtapose what is considered orthodox with what's considered heretical. And when we see how worldviews are shaped, principles affirmed and understandings clarified by the engagement with, rather than the silencing of, opposing, even offensive or disturbing, points of view.

The principle that FIRE defends in all realms is articulated well within religion by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who wrote, "Religion is at its best when it relies on strength of argument and example, is at its worst when it seeks to impose truth by force." And this is not just some contemporary idea. 16th century Rabbi Judah Lowe said it beautifully. He wrote, "It is not proper, that we despise the words of our adversaries, but rather we must draw them as close as we can. Therefore, it is proper out of love of reason and knowledge that you should not summarily reject anything that opposes your own ideas. Even if such beliefs are opposed to your faith and religion. Do not say to your opponent 'Speak not. Close your mouth.' On the contrary, you should at such time say speak up as much as you want, whatever you wish. Curbing the words of an opponent in religious matters is nothing but the curbing and enfeebling of religion itself. What strength is manifested when the opponent is not permitted to fight?"

Continue ReadingFIRE Honors Mark Berkson for Defending his Colleague, Who was Fired for Being a Good Teacher