The Idiots Are Dancing

A partisan political court order has members of the PLA celebrating as if they had actually won something

This past week we saw another consequence of the decision of the Twitter Filers, when confronted with the journalistic equivalent of the Long Dark of Moria, to start singing the Mickey Mouse Club theme song - M-I-C… F-B-I… C-I-A-so-easy… When, surely unknowingly as a consequence of the Holocaustism-addled consciousness, they had a choice between recognizing that the complex story was either riddled with Jewish operatives on every level, from Jesse Cohn of Paul Singer’s Elliott Management down to the Jewnatic Andrew Aaron Weisburd at Hamilton 68, or it was being driven by the intelligence agencies and ex-FBI goys like Clint Watts and James Baker. Given their essentially testicular-free nature when approaching that thin blue line, and perhaps the subversion of neocon cuntess Bari Weiss and her minions, their choice was for them no choice at all.

So now we have some Trump-appointed cracker judge in Louisiana taking that politically-correct and risk-free fairytale and running with it, essentially banning the big bad Biden administration from having any contact with the poor subservient oligarchs and their underlings at the so-abused new media giants of Silicon Valley, and blaming it all on those goddamned revenuers, the guvmint. Holy guacamole, Batman.

I arrived a bit late to this party, on Saturday after listening to a couple videos by future neo-Bircher loon Kim Iversen and the latest podcast by Twitter filer Matt Taibbi. And as is so often the case these days, I was almost astounded by their overjoyed reaction to what clearly was a blatantly partisan act of limited scope and quite possibly duration - well, I was at least momentarily. For Kim I guess that should be expected given her sheer hatred of the Clintonite “neoliberals” ruling the Democratic Party which to her by all rights should be run by “independent” Brooklyn Bernie, and with Matt, at least in his mind, it's a kind of justification of all his hard work and the shit he’s taken from the more-compliant left (like Jewish former Russo-eXiled mates Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, which suggests it's not quite blind compliance at play).

So let’s start this with Kim’s first video and her guest, who is one of the plaintiffs in the case:

One of the important things here are the issues he lists that have been subject to these governmental activities: covid-related issues (really vaccines), the Hunter laptop and election integrity (translation: StopTheSteal), and monetary policy (re Treasury and their involvement, even though it’s really the Fed that manages US monetary policy). So what are we talking about here? These are not only GOP-right issues but more specifically Trumptard GOP-right issues.

But he also says at the beginning that one of the allegations was that the government was “colluding with” social media companies, which means a kind of illegal partnership and not just the one-way pressure that is the rest of the allegations. That’s important given the judgment handed down, which is not reflective of that in any way.

Here he talked about some of the narrowing of the ruling and the ability of the government to interact with these companies on matters of speech which are not protected by the first amendment. Now think about that: just because something isn’t protected speech - which just means the government can’t censor it - doesn’t mean the government should take an active role in making sure it gets censored. In fact, the government should simply stay out of that, unless there truly is a matter of direct public safety involved. Where this gets really slippery is “hate speech”, which I will get back to.

Here Kim raises another area of real concern:

So that’s all kind of vague, but what does the judgment say? Here is part of what NPR reported on this decision:

The ruling also prevents federal officials from working with third parties including the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, and the Stanford Internet Observatory — three academic research groups that track the spread of online information. Republicans have accused the Biden administration of attempting to outsource its alleged efforts to stifle speech to outside organizations and academics.

So these are the same three entities he mentioned in that clip, but what is prohibited? The government working with them - there is NOTHING about those entities working with social media companies on censorship. And that is what the judgment says, the government officials and agencies specified are prohibited from working with specifically those three entities “or any like project or group”. So what is the primary commonality in these three entities?

Yes, none other than “the Zelig of Disinformation” according to Taibbi, post-New Knowledge Rene DiResta at the Stanford Internet Observatory, who I have addressed almost endlessly here over the last 7-8 months, longer than even Taibbi has. So this ruling doesn’t do anything about her involvement in the deep state censorship project except to make it illegal for the public state, at least in theory the people’s representatives, to get involved, which is starting to sound classically Republican.

And let’s remember this project is mainly funded by oligarchs like the Jew Craig Newmark, this isn’t the RAND Corp. to the CIA. If you think delinking them from the government is going to make them go away, you need to think again.

Another example of something that doesn’t necessarily appear to be addressed is the apparently-cozy relationship between the Jew Laura Rosenberger at the Alliance for Securing Democracy / Hamilton 68 and the ethnically-unspecified Emily Horne at Twitter, both who were at State and the NSC under Obama, “revolving-doored” to the private sector during Trump, and came back to the NSC under Biden, which I addressed at the very end of my piece Strange Days - Addendum Two: Strange Bedfellows? Part 1. A linkage not addressed by the Twitterfilers either, and this has its own Dark Jewish-American Princess angle:

To my knowledge DiResta has never held a formal position in government, and the question about Rosenberger is, is she really a government operative who infiltrated an NGO, or is she essentially a deep state operative who infiltrated government? Think about her as a junior-grade Blinken, Sullivan, Haines, Yellen, Garland, Mayorkas (who is specifically named in the judgment).

One last clip here on the mainstream press reaction:

So that’s absolutely untrue, it is obviously a partisan issue, starting with the gang of four plaintiffs - three are doctors who were on the wrong side of the pandemic narrative including this guy (I don’t know their core politics, but their covid positions resulted in them linking with the GOP right, including Ron DeSantis), but the fourth, Jill Hines, is not only a “medical freedom” activist but a Republican party activist in Louisiana, where the decision got made. We will hear Taibbi mention the involvement of Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit, which is based in Missouri and probably explains why Missouri is the other state participating in this suit.

As to whether or not “the only question” is government involvement in social media censorship, that’s a matter of personal opinion, but in my view it’s not only not the only question, it’s not even close to being the most-important question. But this is what you get when “the people” are playing checkers and the deep state is playing chess.

I’ve talked a lot about the papers of record NY Times and Wash Post long histories of Jewish ownership and management and I won’t get into that. That NPR article started with this:

The government's ability to fight disinformation online has suffered a legal setback that experts say will have a chilling effect on communications between federal agencies and social media companies. A Tuesday ruling by a federal district judge in Louisiana could have far-reaching consequences for the government's ability to work with Facebook and other social media giants to address false and misleading claims about COVID, vaccines, voting, and other issues that could undermine public health and erode confidence in election results. District Court Judge Terry Doughty, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday that bars several federal departments and agencies from various interactions with social media companies.

Obviously this reflects a very biased view on the matters at hand and doesn’t reflect a concern over the loss of at least the spirit of freedom of speech as evidenced in the behavior of the new media giants. But that doesn’t make the ruling not a partisan act either. And note that this also reflects the twin largely-partisan issues that this ruling was really all about, covid/vaccines and “election integrity”, and not so much actual freedom of speech.

So let’s flip to Taibbi and his Ed McMahon on their America this Week podcast last Friday. Taibbi has a big dog in this fight because it’s his Twittergate story that reflected much of the basis of this ruling, but it’s his Mr. Ed Walter Kirn who frames their story most clearly. Here I’ll start with Matt citing that bit on essentially DiResta:

So we have Kirn again stating the twin matters of concern to the Trumptard court, covid vaccines and election-stealing. And then he said without this ruling any administration could just do what they want. But there is no recognition that this didn’t start in 2021 with Biden and that none of this stuff is evidence of Trump administration manipulation of social media.

Which is a core problem with the whole story as spun by Taibbi & Co., that the claimed government manipulations aren’t tied to a specific presidency or a specific party in office, because they are claimed to have gone on continuously and consistently from Obama to Trump to Biden (there is the implication that the intelligence agencies basically reported to the evil Killary when both Obama and Trump were president, which is an obvious and baseless fantasy; we see this in the Russiagate narratives as well). But of course this ruling doesn’t even reflect all of that, because the judge appears to start at some point during the pandemic and before the election in 2020.

Matt jumps back in and makes an interesting reference when talking about one of the plaintiffs:

The guy he’s talking about there is Aaron Kheriaty, who is the guy Iversen was interviewing in that earlier video. What jumped out at me was the reference to an article he wrote in Tablet magazine, which was where the article written by Jacob Siegel that was the subject of my piece I mentioned above had appeared; it’s absolutely a 100% New York Jewish rag and I would characterize it as essentially neoconservative / neo-centrist politically from what I have seen. I found the article, which was published just over a month ago, and here is how it starts:

One year ago, I joined the states of Missouri and Louisiana and several other co-plaintiffs to file a suit in federal court challenging what journalist Michael Shellenberger has called the censorship-industrial complex. While much of the press cooperated with the state’s censorship efforts and has ignored our court battle, we expect that it will ultimately go to the Supreme Court, setting up Missouri v. Biden to be the most important free speech case of our generation—and arguably, of the past 50 years.

Prior government censorship cases typically involved a state actor unconstitutionally meddling with one publisher, one author, one or two books, a single article. But as we intend to prove in court, the federal government has censored hundreds of thousands of Americans, violating the law on tens of millions of occasions in the last several years. This unprecedented breach was made possible by the wholly novel reach and breadth of the new digital social media landscape.

My co-plaintiffs, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and I were censored for content related to COVID and public health policy that the government disfavored. Documents we have reviewed on discovery demonstrate that government censorship was far more wide-ranging than previously known, from election integrity and the Hunter Biden laptop story to gender ideology, abortion, monetary policy, the U.S. banking system, the war in Ukraine, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and more. There is hardly a topic of recent public discussion and debate that the U.S. government has not targeted for censorship.

Jacob Seigel, Matt Taibbi, and other investigative reporters have begun to document the anatomy of the censorship leviathan, a tightly interconnected network of federal agencies and private entities receiving public funding—where much of the censorship grunt work is outsourced. The “industrial” in censorship-industrial complex should be understood literally: censorship is now a highly developed industry, complete with career-training institutions in higher education (like Stanford’s Internet Observatory or the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public), full-time job opportunities in industry and government (from the Virality Project and the Election Integrity Partnership to any number of federal agencies engaged in censorship), and insider jargon and euphemisms (like disinformation, misinformation, and “malinformation” which must be debunked and “prebunked”) to render the distasteful work of censorship more palatable to industry insiders. [!!!]

Now, I don’t know if Kheriaty is Jewish or not, I suspect not, but these days he certainly has Jewish associations at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (like Aaron Rothstein and Elizabeth Rosenthal) where he’s worked since getting fired from the Univ of California - Irvine, apparently related to covid/vaccines. And he’s been associated with (including by Tablet) a small group of doctors and others who have been part of the “serious” or intellectual opposition to the general government approach to covid, including people like Steve Kirsch and Brett Weinstein. Maybe that’s nothing though, but the desire that Tablet has in pursuing this story is interesting.

And in particular the way they are pursuing it - my two pieces on the Siegel article were all about the way that the censorship-industrial complex was being defined to exclude the Jews who have been such an important component to it, including in the Twittergate reporting, and instead putting it on the government and government-supported NGOs, and doing all that using the informed wisdom so many Jewish “experts”. So are we seeing Tablet as a bit player in this deep state 3D chess match?

Again, if you look at that Rosenberger/Horne pairing, they spent 2017-2021 outside of government, and their most important role in all this took pace during that time, there is no indication that they did anything nefarious (in this regard anyway) at State or the NSC. Even Taibbi’s goy villains Baker and Watts weren’t at the FBI when they really got involved in all this; it’s guilt by former association with the FBI.

That expanded list of political issues he cites seems to have been pared down in the court ruling, but those are all things with a right-left and/or Republican/Democrat aspect to them, and one assumes the “government” consistently falls on the left/Dem side. And note that this action is specifically against the Biden administration. Which again raises the question why, if at least some of this stuff predates 2021 and that means four years of Trump.

The list includes monetary policy again but also the US banking system, which suggests what he’s really talking about is the neo-Bircher Fed thing - I do NOT believe that has ever been a serious target of censorship, although the true believers like James Corbett dream about how dangerous talking like that is. In other words, another alt fantasy. But the mention of Treasury suggests the real issue regarding censorship might have been, you guessed it, (the Jew) Janet Yellen.

I also have doubts about the censoring of simple opinions on the Ukraine war, there must be more to it than that, like, say, prohibited speech on that president’s or our Sec of State’s ethnicity - it's the specifics on exactly what is being censored that really matters. Simply voicing opposition to the war isn’t going to get you censored, which I would think would be Iversen’s and Taibbi’s main concern. But maybe what’s being referred to here is actual alt reporting from the war zone that’s countering the general western line on the war, who knows; I don’t have much sense of any silencing in that regard.

Back to Walter:

So here we have the product of more fantasizing, of the embrace of a manufactured narrative to build a sellable paradigm around this whole thing that is socially acceptable and politically correct. If you believe that it was the government that drove this censorship program that has been going on for years, then you are forced to believe that a court order to cease and desist surely will result in an explosion of free speech (until the government can shut it down again as he says). And that means the tech new media giants will change their rules of engagement and their policing of them, and we will have the virtual equivalent of the Prague Spring.

Oh, sorry, I meant the Velvet Revolution - Prague Spring was snuffed out by Soviet tanks…

Which makes it the right analogy - is there even one person who reads this who is so naive that they actually believe anything will change? Of course not - because it isn't really “the government” that has been driving censorship in social media, and I have to believe we all know that.

Let’s start with the low-hanging fruit - will YouTube immediately reinstate that Jordan Peterson podcast interview of RFK Jr? That was nuked because of vaccine disinformation, so that’s apparently right in the government’s wheelhouse. Let me go check right now - nope, I don’t see it. Huh.

Much further down their list of wrongs to be righted, will YouTube send me an email any day now saying my channel is being reinstated because two of my three strikes back in 2021 were about covid vaccines?* Not a chance. Because Page and Brin and Wojcicki’s Jewish new media giant operation systematically wanted to mechanically silence me, probably because I made no money for them and because my third strike was for “hate speech”, meaning I committed the sin of talking about Jews and Jewish power and Jewish socio-political intentions.

And that didn’t start in 2021, it started years earlier, and YouTube began to visibly react by 2018 when I discovered they had been shadow-banning my comments under other people’s videos. As in making them invisible to everyone but me, which really means selectively banning, and deceptively as well just to make it worse. Did the government have anything to do with that? Fuck no.

So do you think YouTube will change their “community guidelines” on “hate speech” or anything else? No, of course not. Is hate speech protected by the first amendment? Depends on how it's defined, which is the slippery part. Does this ruling allow government to address hate speech with the new media giants? Again, that depends on how you interpret the language. Does that matter? No, because the first amendment prohibition doesn't apply to anyone but the government, and no one will do anything about censorship related to Section 230, which is an issue a lot more important that this crap.

So let's switch back to Iversen and a rather peculiar follow-up rant video, where even she starts to kind of recognize the reality of the situation. Maybe:

Oh, let’s not talk about Threads please. But here she’s constructed a narrative that explains why this ruling won’t likely have any effect on the censorship - but one that still blames “da guvmint!” and not billionaire oligarch new media dictators like Zuckerberg. In part because government really means the Democratic Party to her, she like everyone else doesn’t also blame Republicans for this.

And she fucking hates the Dems. Which all goes back to her beloved Bernie and the hope that the American taxpayers would pay off her moldy college loans and provide her with free medical care. Seriously - what, you think she was/is a well-rounded progressive leftist? But I digress…

Why should we target the Dems? Because the Dems are absolutely owned by the Jews - financially, philosophically, historically, in every sense. There has been not only a long evolution of the makeup of power within the deep state, but also how that power is employed through the two parties. Today the socio-political “establishment” is the Jews, and the establishment party is the Dems; in the 1950s it was the Protestants and the establishment party was the GOP. In 1960 a president was elected who wasn’t fully compliant with the deep state, and that started two decades of turmoil in America and within the American deep state; in 2016 a president was elected who wasn’t fully compliant with the deep state, and that has set off another period of turmoil in America that has yet to peak.

So what happens if, say, RFK Jr is somehow elected next year, having run a campaign that in part has targeted this censorship? Well, based on this judgment the precedent has been set for the government being blocked in engaging with the social media companies on the matter of content censorship. Read the wording - the government is:

“…hereby enjoined and restrained from taking the following actions as to social-media companies: (3) urging, encouraging, pressuring or inducing in any manner social-media companies to change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing or reducing content containing protected free speech.”

Sorry, Bob, but it’s the law, you can put away your bully pulpit. So much for the people’s representative - Zuckerberg, Page, Brin & Co. control free speech and lack thereof in America…

Of course this is just an opening gambit, (Jewish) Attorney General Merrick Garland has already made his countering move, and this won’t end until it gets to the Supreme Court. If it’s truly “the government”, the Court will overturn this ruling, because they are part of that government. But if it’s the Dems, they probably won’t, because GOP appointees control the Court. And if it’s “someone else”, who knows. In that process what is ultimately decided will surely evolve into something other than this specific judgment.

But we should be concerned, because this is a partisan battle based on a story or narrative that itself is essentially a fabrication. And when you have a story that frames (Page & Brin’s) Google/YouTube, (Zuckerberg’s) Facebook and (effectively Cohn’s) Twitter as victims, you need to be very circumspect about cheering on the side that is essentially fighting for their cause. We saw this evolution in the Twitterfile reporting, with the Jew Yoel Roth transitioned from the face of censorship evil at the start to the Don Quixote internally tilting at windmills a few months later.

Anyone who thinks of this as a meaningful battle won in a long war over freedom of speech simply doesn’t understand what’s going on.

*Note: My YouTube channel was taken down on August 31, 2021, after I’d received a third strike for violating their “community guidelines”, all received that summer (even though I was out of commission for a month with covid). The first and third strikes were on videos criticizing Kim Iversen for her YouTube videos on the vaccine situation, and that closely parallels what I said in the videos I posted here as part of the piece Greenwald Rehabilitates Sachs and RFK Jr? - part three: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. The videos that I was criticizing remained up on YouTube, which makes me wonder if the strikes actually came from the parts of her videos that I included, but that she didn’t receive strikes because of the popularity and monetization of her channel and the general narrative of her work to that point. Nothing I was saying relative to what she’d said should have resulted in strikes against me.

Here is a video on the takedown that I posted the next day on Bitchute and later on Rumble: https://rumble.com/vlymc0-youtube-holocaust-third-strike-channel-gets-the-chamber....html I didn’t repost the video that resulted in that third strike on Rumble (the Bitchute vids won’t play).