Tag Archives: Infowars

The Social Media Purge and How It Affects Everyone, by Daisy Luther

Keeping unwanted voices off the internet and social media serves the purposes of those who would indoctrinate. From Daisy Luther at theorganicprepper.com:

Just about every website owner I know is feeling personally victimized by the recent social media purge that has been going on.  But here’s an interesting fact: it isn’t, as is widely perceived, just conservative voices that are being silenced. It is dissenting voices.

It’s the voices of critical thinkers whose ideas run the gamut of philosophies who find that they no longer have much in the way of reach.

This social media purge affects everyone, even people who are not on social media. It does so in several ways:

  1. Dissenting information is silenced which stifles discussion
  2. Young people who are avid consumers of social media are being literally brainwashed because they only see one side of the story – any story
  3. The social media purge harms websites that post non-establishment information because it stamps out their ability to reach readers who would be interested in their content.
  4. The unfairly biased search results show people who are trying to learn more about a topic only one side of the information.

You don’t have to be on a Twitter feed to see how this is an overwhelmingly anti-American problem. Like it or not, social media is a monumental source of information these days, and when it’s censored to only show one point of view, the future of our republic is in peril. We are well on our way to peak censorship and this has been carefully orchestrated.

Non-establishment websites are in trouble.

Their website traffic is plummeting because they no longer show up anywhere near the top of search results. Their posts on social media are not presented to the public – or even the people who deliberately opted to “follow” them.  Here’s an example from my own page. I have more than 30K people who chose to follow my page, as you can see in the top image. But in the bottom image, you can see how many of those people were actually shown my post. And this was actually a more successful one than many.

And the same thing goes for social media like Twitter too. I have an email list and if I didn’t, I’d hardly reach anyone. (If you haven’t signed up for my newsletter, you can do so right here.) And I really have to wonder – will our “offensive” websites one day just disappear, scrubbed from the internet permanently? It’s only a matter of time until the web hosting companies are being pressured to get in on the censorship game.

For the record, I consider myself neither conservative nor liberal. I try to veer away from any form of extremism and I make an effort to think a situation through before automatically aligning myself with a “side.” If anything, I’m a small l libertarian. My core beliefs are personal autonomy and freedom of association are to be sought in all cases that are not harmful to others.  And yet, somehow, that is threatening to some people.

Don’t think it’s limited to website owners. Twitter recently banned 70 million accounts, claiming they were “fake.” But there have been repeated accusations that conservative accounts have been at the very least “shadow-banned” if not all out deleted.

The most notable purge recently has been Alex Jones and Infowars.

Love Alex Jones, hate him, or feel utterly ambivalent aside from an occasional eye-roll, he has been the most notable victim to have been thoroughly erased from the public eye as far as the large social media outlets are concerned. He lost his voice on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Apple, and Google. Even his email service provider dumped him.

I’m not personally a huge fan of Jones, but I do believe what happened to him was collusion between social media giants. Big Tech got together and now Alex Jones has to find new ways to reach his very large audience. No one is going to stumble across him accidentally in a Google Search anymore. No one is going to see his videos embedded in another website anymore. Like him or not, he has the right to exist publicly.

Jones has a lot of money so this may not be the end of him, but for most website owners, this would be the absolute end of our ability to do business. And to be able to bring the information we bring, we do have to run our websites as businesses. It’s far more expensive than most people realize to run a site. I know that my own operating costs every month are more than $2000. A site as big as Jones’s would be many times that amount. When all your avenues of monetization are cut off, it wouldn’t be hard for a site – and the dissent and information they share – to cease to exist.

If nothing else, dissent is the American way.

A little allegory on becoming an unperson.

Think back to high school lit class when you read 1984 by George Orwell.

If it’s been a while, I’ll recap the pertinent parts of the plot from Spark Notes.

Winston Smith is a low-ranking member of the ruling Party in London, in the nation of Oceania. Everywhere Winston goes, even his own home, the Party watches him through telescreens; everywhere he looks he sees the face of the Party’s seemingly omniscient leader, a figure known only as Big Brother. The Party controls everything in Oceania, even the people’s history and language. Currently, the Party is forcing the implementation of an invented language called Newspeak, which attempts to prevent political rebellion by eliminating all words related to it. Even thinking rebellious thoughts is illegal. Such thoughtcrime is, in fact, the worst of all crimes…

…As the novel opens, Winston feels frustrated by the oppression and rigid control of the Party, which prohibits free thought, sex, and any expression of individuality. Winston dislikes the party and has illegally purchased a diary in which to write his criminal thoughts…

…Winston works in the Ministry of Truth, where he alters historical records to fit the needs of the Party.  (source)

The Ministry of Truth is control of all the things from which people could garner their opinions. They provide their own twist on history, current events, entertainment, education, and the arts. The people of Oceana believe them because there isn’t enough information to believe anything else. And questioning the Ministry is a thoughtcrime, punishable by horrible torture or worse. Part of Winston’s job is to turn anyone who doesn’t follow the Ministry line into an unperson and erase them from history as though they never even existed.

So who is behind this mass purge of dissenting voices?

There’s always a money trail to follow. Any time you wonder why or how something has occurred, look for the money. In this video by Ben Swann, an independent journalist who was mysteriously silenced for quite some time, he provides some important insight.

This is happening RIGHT NOW. We are living it. We are living in the world of 1984.

Rest assured, the way things are going, it isn’t long before we will see only what “they” – the people with the power and money to make it happen – want us to see.

Social pressure is also limiting free thought.

And not only do we have organizations limiting our views of things that would broaden our minds, there’s also the rampant social pressure that we’ve seen since the last election.

When we were recently looking at rental homes, a potential landlady asked me for whom I voted in the last election. I didn’t even bother looking at the place because that is not a standard question one asks of a new tenant. It certainly has nothing to do with my ability to pay the rent. It has nothing to do with my potential for keeping things clean and in good shape. I just left because no house is worth dealing with a person who clearly let me know she was not someone with whom I wanted to do business.

And that is only my personal example. Employers check the social media accounts of prospective employees to see if they approve of how the person thinks.  People who disagree publicly with powerful groups get doxxed. Dozens of stories have circulated about social pressure, lost friendships, disagreements, and mistreatment in the workplace that originated from differences in political beliefs.

How can people be expected to form accurate opinions without all the information? How can they do so when they’re under pressure for their livelihood or their ability to rent a home or when they fear for their privacy?

It’s pretty clear that there are those who don’t want people to form accurate opinions. They want to gently, quietly, insidiously get everyone on board by limiting our access to the variety of philosophies and theories that make the world go round.

 

Advertisements

Bombshell: PayPal Bans Inforwars After Lobbying by Soros, by Paul Joseph Watson

First it was social media, now it’s the payments processors. You can bet that now that PayPal has done it, others will also ban Infowars. From Paul Joseph Watson at infowars.com:

Payment processor PayPal has banned Infowars in what represents nothing less than a political ploy designed to financially sabotage an influential media outlet just weeks before the mid-term elections.

Company representatives called Infowars yesterday to confirm that PayPal was terminating its agreement after “a comprehensive review of the Infowars site.”

The company claimed that Infowars violated PayPal’s “acceptable use policy” because it “promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions.”

No specific examples whatsoever were officially provided to back up this claim, which relies on a nebulous definition of “hate” which is so vague that virtually anything could qualify.

Off record, Infowars was told that criticism of Islam and opposition to transgenderism being taught to children in schools were two of the examples of “hate”.

The ban was instituted despite InfowarsStore.com containing no political content whatsoever, emphasizing how the decision was a broader attack on the Infowars platform.

PayPal representatives said they were giving Infowars 10 days to switch payment processors, after which all services would be terminated. Continue reading

The Ritual Burial of the US Constitution, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

Many of Trump’s many enemies are enemies of the Constitution and American freedom. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:

In the wake of a number of the Lehman and 9/11 commemorations in America, and as a monster storm is once again threatening to cause outsize damage, we find ourselves at a pivotal point in time, which will decide how the country interacts with its own laws, its legal system, its Constitution, its freedom of speech, and indeed if it has sufficient willpower left to adhere to the Constitution as its no. 1 guiding principle.

The main problem is that it all seems to slip slide straight by the people, who are -kept- busy with completely different issues. That is convenient for those who would like less focus on the Constitution, but it’s also very dangerous for everyone else. Americans should today stand up for freedom of speech, or it will be gone, likely forever. Continue reading

Silencing Alex . . . For Openers, by Eric Peters

Alex Jones was banned in a coordinated action by several of the social media platforms. This post was originally posted three days ago, but technical difficulties prevented it from being posted correctly. Here’s the second try, from Eric Peters at theburningplatform:

The other day, YouTube and Facebook and several other inter-related social media platforms banned Alex Jones – the founder of Prison Planet and InfoWars. The reason given isn’t that Alex is a “conspiracy” theorist – the ancient charge – but chiefly that he is a purveyor of “hate” speech.

What this really means is that the powers that be hate the things Alex speaks about – his political incorrectness – and can no longer abide his being free to speak about such things.

Having locked down colleges, the workplace and most other places, the very last place where it is still possible to openly express non-orthodox views – and to hear and read them – is online.

And now that is to be locked down, too.

The powers-that-be are almost literally chewing the carpet over the success of politically incorrect alternative media. They cannot stand it that people aren’t listening to them – and instead are listening to such as Alex and anyone else who does not parrot the party line.

The Internet opened up a level playing field. Made it possible to end-run the curatorship of the powers-that-be over the dissemination and analysis of information to a mass audience. One no longer needed to have the budget of The New York Times or CNN to compete with both of them.

Which has been driving the curators to Bunker Scene paroxysms of rage.

Since it’s not yet formally illegal to voice – and publish – contrarian views (which are often simply correct views which deviate from politically correct orthodox views; for example, raising questions about the government’s official explanation for the symmetric, almost free-fall collapse of WTC 7 on 911) the method used to silence these views was first to “demonetize” those who voiced and published them.

To continue reading: Silencing Alex . . . For Openers

Assange, Infowars and the Constitution, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

Legally, the social media companies that have banned Alex Jones are private companies and can put or not put anyone they want on their platforms. Julian Assange is being persecuted by governments for revealing truth, which makes his plight several orders of magnitude more severe than Jones’. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:

This morning I woke up, looked around me, and saw a world sinking into a quagmire of voluntary censorship, a world willing to let someone far away choose what it can and cannot see of itself, and about itself. A world that no longer appears to recognize, or care, that this goes directly against its founding principles of liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of the press.

I can think of many reasons why someone would want to ban Infowars and Alex Jones, and I don’t even know them other than from incidental tweets and comments. But I also acknowledge that that is not the point. Just because you would like to ban a person or organization, just because you don’t agree with them, doesn’t mean you can, or should be able to.

And if Facebook, Google, Apple, Spotify and Pinterest -all within hours of each other-, think it’s a good idea to ban Jones regardless, they had better do a lot better than saying something about violating their ‘community standards’. They should identify specific instances where these alleged violations take place, and identify them publicly.

You can’t ban anyone on vague ‘standards’ from media that cover half the planet. Because that’s a danger to the entire planet, and to all of mankind. As Facebook and Google are very busy lobbying Washington, Brussels et al to drop any anti-trust charges against them, and let them continue to be private enterprises, they are shirking ever close to the various intelligence communities.

Politicians and secret agents alike have long recognized the potential Big Tech offers for controlling their populations. Long before those populations themselves have recognized the danger embedded in this potential. The treatment of Julian Assange and Infowars, 180º different as they are, puts all this in very sharp perspective.

How are you going to be informed, and stay informed, of what’s happening in the world, of what your government does and plans, if your media, both old and new, conspire to let you know only what they want you to, and to present a version of the world, of reality, that they invented in order to safeguard their future and that of their sponsors? Who’s going to tell you what happens behind the infinite layers of curtains?

To continue reading: Assange, Infowars and the Constitution