The Elaborate Machinery Behind the 2020 Banning of Charlie Kirk

People don't simply get banned from social media. There's always a back story and we rarely know the details. And since at least 2020, that back story has typically involved the elaborate machinery of the censorship-industrial complex, including corporate media, NGOs and the U.S Government.

Charlie Kirk has now been assassinated, but the story of his banning in 2020 is instructive. Matt Taibbi has investigated the 2020 banning of Charlie Kirk in "Twitter Files: The Muzzling of Charlie KirkAt a crucial juncture in the 2020 presidential election, the Washington Post used a tried-and-true method to pressure Twitter to remove Kirk." Here's an excerpt:

Kirk was banned once, then finally actioned again, and again, with groups like the DFRLabs and New Knowledge working with the Washington Post and other outlets to advertise the action.

Efforts to remove Kirk aren’t urgent background to his assassination, but the episodes do play a part in the overall story. Unquestionably, antagonists of Kirk and Donald Trump recognized that he was an important Internet voice, and the repeated actions sent a signal that he needed to be removed — either for spreading “disinformation” or for more dubious claims of “inauthentic” activity. That there were repeated efforts to go after the same person before the 2020 election also speaks volumes. No other figure in Trump’s orbit had the kind of reach with young people and the same Internet savvy.

It's always the same story. People being censored/banned/shadow-banned and it takes a hell of a lot of work by uniquely stilled, motivated and rare people like Matt Taibbi to get to the bottom of it. Therefore, we rarely every know what really happened. How elaborate is this censorship machinery? In this post, Camus summarizes a video by Robert Malone explaining the Fifth Generation PysOp that we are up against:

Dr. Robert Malone unveils the unsettling architecture of modern control.

In true 5th generation warfare, you never see your opponent. The question isn't "who," but "what." What is the puppet master behind the globally harmonized COVID crisis? Klaus Schwab? Biden? Fauci? These are but surrogates. The true managers of the message remain hidden.

Over the last three years, a silent coalition formed. Western governments, NGOs, transnational organizations, Big Pharma, media conglomerates, and financial corporations merged into public/private partnerships—a euphemism for the new fascism.

Their mission: To execute the most massive, globally coordinated psychological operation in the history of the Western world.

Their weapon: The very same military-grade PsyOps strategies, tactics, and technologies developed for modern combat theaters.

Their target: Their own citizens.

We have been subjected to a perpetual, calculated campaign designed not to inform, but to direct. To manipulate. To control.

The world we believed existed is gone. It's time to see the battlefield for what it is.

Continue ReadingThe Elaborate Machinery Behind the 2020 Banning of Charlie Kirk

Nellie Bowles Exposes that Left Wing Media is Always About Agenda, not Curiosity

Nellie Bowles, at TGIF:

Here’s MSNBC contributor Matthew Dowd shortly after Charlie was shot: “I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.” And: “You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.” And also: “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration, we have no idea.” That makes more sense, right? A right-wing gun nut pointing a gun directly at the guy talking and pulling the trigger to celebrate him—that is definitely the most likely scenario. Later, facing outrage for its coverage, MSNBC apologized for these comments and ended Dowd’s contract.

Well, that’s MSNBC. But CNN? Within a few hours of Charlie’s slaughter, CNN anchor Abby Phillip was calling for the video to be censored, and did her best to do so from her pulpit. “The degree to which the algorithm on this platform is pushing video of the shooting is incredibly disturbing. There has to be some human that can turn the dial down in a situation like this.” Odd how reporters want much, much less reporting. Funny how she didn’t say that about a situation like, I don’t know, George Floyd’s killing. It’s almost like it’s political. ...

And then came the New York Times obituary. A classic. The headline: “Charlie Kirk, Right-Wing Provocateur and Close Ally of Trump, Dies at 31.” Right-wing provocateur. A person trying to provoke, if you think about it. As though there’s no belief system behind it. Just a provocateur. For the sake of it. In the mainstream media worldview, there are two kinds of people: those fighting for left-wing causes, who are described as people of conviction, activists for justice, deep believers in equality. And then there are those fighting for right-wing causes, who are described as provocateurs, cynics, racists, and shills. Archconservatives. They eventually changed the headline. But here’s the New York Times’ obituary: “He was so vocal in his willingness to spread unsupported claims and outright lies—he said that the drug hydroxychloroquine was ‘100 percent effective’ in treating the virus, which it is not—that Twitter temporarily barred him in early March 2020. But that move only added to his notoriety and seemed to support his claim that he was being muzzled by a liberal elite.” Fascinating. A man is murdered in public, in the middle of the day, while practicing his First Amendment rights, and the paper of record decides this must be the perfect moment to do fact-checking about hydroxychloroquine.

What you need to know from this: If your politics are that of a standard normie conservative man, your New York Times obituary will find the various things you said that weren’t exactly right (he got into hydroxychloroquine in 2020! Can you believe that?) and they’ll paint them in the sky. My politics are lib centrist, and these people would certainly celebrate my death, highlight my many errors, and refer to my defense of the SAT as my “repeated advocacy for a return to slavery” or something. What I’m saying is: Just try to stay alive because when you die, a New York Times reporter gets to juice your corpse for likes on Bluesky. MSNBC will invite talking heads on the air to suggest that the shooter could have been your mom who forgot to turn the safety on, we simply don’t know."

Nellie's TGIF column at The Free Press is one of my favorite parts of every week. I highly recommend it.

Continue ReadingNellie Bowles Exposes that Left Wing Media is Always About Agenda, not Curiosity

FIRE Survey: College Violence is On The Upswing

Nico Perrino, the Executive VP of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has authored "Charlie Kirk's assassinationViolence must never be a response to speech."

Unfortunately, since 2021, we’ve seen a steady rise in support for violence in response to speech on campus. Earlier this week, we released our finding that one in three students express some support for the use of violence to stop a campus speech. That’s up from 20 percent only three years ago. While we do not know the identity of the gunman, what happened yesterday is indicative of a broader cancer in our body politic that we must address.

But it must not be addressed with censorship.

For more than 25 years, FIRE has challenged colleges that use speculative and amorphous security rationales to justify censoring controversial speakers. Through public records requests and other means, we’ve often found these rationales serve as a pretext to shut down debate and capitulate to demands for censorship. Indeed, according to our Deplatforming Database, Kirk was the subject of at least 14 attempts to stop him from speaking on campuses since 2021. Over the years, FIRE has repeatedly written to colleges that sought to silence Kirk’s organization and supporters.

The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once observed: “The purpose of thinking is to let the ideas die instead of us dying.”

Continue ReadingFIRE Survey: College Violence is On The Upswing

Preprint Warning of mRNA Risks is Censored

People need to be protected from preprint warning of mRNA risks. The article:

"BREAKING: MDPI Censors One of the World’s Most-Read Preprints Showing mRNA Shots Disrupt Thousands of Genes: With over 34,000 views and 8,600 downloads, our study discovered long-lasting genetic disruption from mRNA shots—only to be unethically censored by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex."

Nicolas Hulscher:

The sheer reach of this work made it impossible for the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex and its online enforcers at PubPeer to ignore. So they pressured Preprints.org into doing something unprecedented: retracting a preprint, an act almost never seen in science.

Infographic from the censored article:

Continue ReadingPreprint Warning of mRNA Risks is Censored

The Characteristics of People who Commonly Engage in Ad Hominem Attacks

I asked Grok: "What characteristics would you attribute to people who refuse to engage on the issues and instead engage in ad hominem attacks?"

Grok's response (I think it's an excellent response):

People who consistently avoid substantive debate on issues and resort to ad hominem attacks—insulting the person rather than addressing their arguments—often exhibit a cluster of psychological, cognitive, and behavioral traits. These aren't universal, as context matters (e.g., stress or cultural norms can play a role), but based on observations from psychology, rhetoric, and social dynamics, here are some common characteristics I'd attribute to them:Intellectual insecurity or defensiveness: They may feel their beliefs or knowledge are under threat, leading them to deflect by attacking the messenger. This stems from a fragile ego or imposter syndrome, where engaging deeply risks exposing weaknesses.

1. Lack of substantive knowledge or preparation: Without strong facts or reasoning to back their position, they fall back on personal jabs as a shortcut. It's easier to call someone "stupid" than to research and counter an argument effectively.

2. Emotional immaturity or high reactivity: Prone to letting emotions override logic, they might have poor impulse control or unresolved anger issues, turning discussions into personal vendettas. This aligns with traits seen in low emotional intelligence (EQ).

3. Cognitive biases in overdrive: Things like confirmation bias (only seeking info that supports their view) or black-and-white thinking make them dismiss opposing ideas outright, viewing disagreement as a personal affront rather than an intellectual challenge.

4. Manipulative or bad-faith tendencies: In some cases, it's a deliberate tactic to derail conversations, common in trolls, propagandists, or those with narcissistic traits who prioritize "winning" over truth-seeking. They might enjoy provoking reactions for entertainment or control.

5. Poor communication or conflict resolution skills: Often stemming from upbringing, education gaps, or social environments that reward aggression over dialogue, they haven't learned (or choose not to use) tools like active listening or constructive criticism.

These behaviors can be self-reinforcing, as they alienate thoughtful interlocutors and surround the person with echo chambers. If it's a habit, it might indicate deeper issues like anxiety disorders or even cluster B personality traits (e.g., borderline or antisocial tendencies), though that's speculative without clinical context. On the flip side, everyone slips into ad hominem occasionally under pressure—it's the refusal to engage that's the red flag.

Continue ReadingThe Characteristics of People who Commonly Engage in Ad Hominem Attacks