patrick.net

as soon as you allow ANY speech whatsoever to be branded dangerous or harmful or anti-social and suppressed by force of the state, no speech is truly free. you no longer possess an inalienable right. you posses a privilege that can be alienated “if we have a good reason.” this is a massive shift in power that seems like a small thing when they do it. it’s an entirely new framing.

the question is no longer settled by “you are a human, you have an absolute right to free speech, therefore, speak.” any act of the state to bar or prevent such is unjust and illegal. the debate is “is this suppression?”

the question is now “you are speaking. does this speech pass some threshold beyond which the state should prevent it?” and that is a VERY different question. you have already accepted that speech can be illegal. you’ve let them substitute “do you support nazis?” for “do humans have an inalienable right to speech?” it is the shape of the question itself, not the answers to it, that then determines the outcomes.

once you frame the issue, the debate is already over.

this is why, upon hearing of any new such suppression, ESPECIALLY if it is the suppression of something you hate, you should pause and dig down to the true essence of what is happening. ...

they will pick the least sympathetic case to get the ball rolling.

after all, who’s going to stand up for some neo nazis?

well, you should, and here’s why: sure they may be odious and you may disagree violently with them, but an assault on their speech is an assault on everyone’s speech, yours included. ...

it’s a sneaky, effective trick. but it’s one they use over and over. because it works. well. but using it over and over comprises a weakness as well, because once aware, you can see the whole arc coming.

they give you something you actually want and an outcome you like. but this most trojan of horses is how you lose the whole city.

all you see is “bad people have to shut up now” and you miss the “i just accepted ends justify the means thinking and rendered my own rights entirely alienable at the discretion of the state.” ...

you must defend the speech of odious people then go back to ignoring what they say or to refuting it.

you must realize that surrendering all your privacy and liberty to (allegedly) catch terrorists means that the terrorists have not only already won, but that you have turned the role of the state into acting the terrorist themselves and refuse to submit to such predation, even and especially if they tell you “it’s temporary.”

you must immediately rail against and resist a state and a media claiming the right to lie to you and manipulate the facts because “we need to shape perception to get the outcomes we want.”

this becomes a reflex and we need this reflex to spread sufficiently to generate a firewall against being overrun. ...

if you would do one, simple, useful thing for your children: teach them this skill.

This site can’t be reachedThe connection was reset.

Remember what the Romanians did to Madame Ceaușescu on Christmas day in 1989, when she and her husband Nicolae, erstwhile president of that sore-beset country, just liberated from decades of communist captivity, were summarily tried by a provisional court after attempting to flee. I’ll tell you: they trussed the two of them up like a couple of Carpathian wild hogs (Sus scrofa), and hauled them before a firing squad. Which is not exactly to say that the United States is like Romania, but that such things happen surprisingly in formerly quiescent places. The people hated her as much, perhaps even more, than her despot husband. Just sayin’.

Why exactly Hillary Clinton would be dumb enough to come out on every news channel and Internet site on Gawd’s green earth to declare the end of free speech throughout Western Civ might remain one of those abiding mysteries of history. Bad timing doesn’t begin to explain it. What does explain it is the psychotic desperation of her party now that the days to election dwindle down and the pathetic figure they “nominated” stumbles from one campaign blunder to the next, and the whole sick crew behind her entertains dark visions of courtrooms and prison cells — including, by the way, her cohort in nation-wrecking Barack Obama, who could be liable to charges such as conspiracy to commit sedition, or even a higher crime, if the election goes the wrong way for him. You might suppose they are fighting for their very lives without being accused of exaggeration.

Questioning the Global Pandemic-Response Structure

Read my 9 July 2021 post that Blogger deleted on 11 October 2024

Below is the full text of my short now-deleted post, and related images

Censorship and deplatforming are characteristics of a totalitarian state

(I have been permanently deplatformed from several main professional and scientific venues, and my work has been extensively deleted from YouTube, Facebook, and scientific journals and media — for being objective about Covid-period measures and vaccines — not to mention regular “fact checking” and personal attacks.)

Title: Questioning the Global Pandemic-Response Structure

IN MY OPINION:

COVID, Swine Flu, Avian Flu, SARS...

Objective harm analysis proves that the "pandemic" global-response structure should be dismantled.

The said structure is a political instrument for globalism, colonialism, and publicly-funded Pharma mega profits, disconnected from reality for viral respiratory diseases.

The pandemic responses have been unjustified and harmful disasters.

Furthermore, looking at all-cause mortality by time (by day, week or month), across all nations with seasonal winter-burden deaths, since WWII, the declared "pandemics" are not statistically different from the "non-pandemics", which is a hard scientific fact.

I conclude that "pandemic" is a fictitious phenomenon, a word used to instill fear and to manipulate for power and profit.

Denis Rancourt 9 July 2021

Related suggested reading: 'Virus Mania' book by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Kohnlein

Tennessee Star @TheTNStar Oct 18

Executive Director of @FFO_Freedom @MikeBenzCyber describes to @michaelpleahy how online censorship can be uprooted, free speech restored, if Trump is elected president.