Inside The Center For Cancel Culture And Digital Hypocrisy, Part 1

Inside The Center For Cancel Culture And Digital Hypocrisy, Part 1 Tyler Durden Sat, 08/15/2020 - 07:00

Authored by Iain Davis via Off-Guardian.org,

The Center For Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) are a UK based organisation who have misspelled “centre” in their name. Perhaps they have opted for the U.S spelling in the hope of selling their peculiar brand of morally bankrupt censorship to the American propaganda market.

The Anti-Vaxx Industry, is a propaganda leaflet with two main objectives. The first is to create a false dichotomy in the public imagination and the second is to build a public-private censorship grid in anticipation of forthcoming government legislation. This is proposed to censor legitimate scientific opinion and evidence based debate on a wide range of issues the government and its corporate partners would rather silence. Including any questioning of vaccines.

CCDH Propaganda Leaflet

They insist that anyone who has any doubts about any vaccine rejects all vaccines outright. This isn’t true but the CCDH are censors and propagandists, not rationalists.

Comically, they claim they are a non-governmental organisation (NGO). While technically plausible, their network of links to government, globalist think tanks and private corporations is extensive.

The CCDH espouse the social reform and political philosophy of progressivism. This advocates alleged progress through the advancement of science, technology and economic development. In the UK this is commonly associated with the political movement found on the right wing of the Labour Party and is the dominant ideology of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).

While still maintaining a putative commitment to representative democracy, it has much in common with the concept of Technocracy and, with the addition of a commitment to maintaining the global dominance of the transatlantic alliance, it is the basis of Blairism. It’s acolytes, such as the CCDH, consider themselves enlightened progressives. However, this sense of elitism produces an intolerance of all opposing views.

There is a strong tendency among progressives to label anything they disagree with as right wing and quite frequently far right or antisemitic. They call themselves radicals and whatever they deem not to be progressive they label as hate. Their language is merely a device used to promote division and create hatred among their followers for anyone or anything the doesn’t toe their progressive doctrine, including their own fellow party members.

Though they see themselves as left wing, there is very little within the progressive movement that could be described as being on the political left. Progressivism has far more in common with the modern centre and centre left of the Conservative Party and there is considerable agreement and ideological overlap between the two.

While falsely claiming a position on the left of the political spectrum, their neoliberalism is far from the traditional socialist values of the social democrats who form the rank and file of the Labour Party membership.

Progress – Self claimed radicals who create the mythology of “hate.”

In the modern cancel culture we passively allow to flourish, with it’s deplatforming, demonetisation, censorship and refusal to engage in either critical thought or debate, the word “Fascist” is overused and frequently misused. Its linguistic power, as a stark historical warning to us all, is being lost in the mire of progressive banality.  So it is worth considering what we really mean when we say “fascist”.

In 1935 in The Doctrine of Fascism the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini wrote:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian.”

And:

The Fascist State ……makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.”

And in Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions he said:

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.”

Mussollini – A preposterous posturing Fascist

A Fascist State is a totalitarian public-private partnership where all policy, speech and expression, economic activity and production is controlled via a beneficial arrangement between government and a network of non governmental organisations such as Unions, think tanks, private corporations and “official” charities.

The individual is removed from all decision making because elections are either banned or meaningless, and those who make policy decisions aren’t elected anyway. They form a technocratic elite. There is no diversity of opinion and all information is controlled by the Fascist State.

Any dissent or questioning of the doctrines of the State is considered to be disinformation and is censored. The Fascist State attempts to control opinion through propaganda, censorship and punishment. With the assistance of censor organisations and propagandists, like the CCDH, such a State is currently under construction in the UK.

Anyone who promotes this form of corporate state, who advocates the corporate censorship of information and decrees that the only source of truth is the public-private State and its representatives; those who propose that the free exchange of ideas, freedom of speech and expression be limited by this corporate State; people who call for those who question the “official” truth to be punished, ostracised or identified as “other” can accurately be described as Fascists.

In modern terms, with the degree of control made possible by the rapid evolution of communication technology, we could refer to them as Technofascists. Thus understood, the Technofascist seeks to seize control of the information highway (the Internet) in order to advance their own scientific, technological, economic and historical truths while excluding all others. They will not tolerate any challenge to their progressive ideology.

CCDH PROPAGANDA

CCDH vaccine propaganda is focused upon polarising opinion. This fake division is created through CCDH disinformation. Like many propagandists before them, they deal in inaccurate, empty generalisations. They hope to convince their consumers that anyone who ever questions a vaccine must be a nutter. The same dross was recently promulgated the UK Conservative Prime Minister.

By misleading people that there is no scientific basis for some vaccine scepticism, nor any legitimate concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, the CCDH are creating fake social divisions in the hope of building real ones. In order to achieve this aim, the CCDH assert that anyone who asks any questions about vaccines is driven by hate and is therefore an extremist who threatens public health, ultimately posing a threat to national security.

They are creating the ludicrous, fake bogeyman of the public health terrorist. The alleged anti-vaxxer as subhuman, a vile, hateful extremist. They are “other.”

Johnson thinks anyone who questions vaccines is a nutter, unlike him

The CCDH propaganda narrative on vaccines is part of a wider slew of nonsense which underpins government efforts to censor the internet and freedom of speech. In the UK we were due to get our first clear sight of the legislative censorship grid with the arrival of the Online Harms Bill.

However, it appears there is a delay in the legislation.

In Part 2 we will discuss the CCHD’s links to government, think tanks and parliamentarians, but it is notable that it is the Labour front benches who are among the most eager to censor freedom of speech. Although petty political point scoring is also a likely factor contributing to their outcry.

The Online Harms Reduction Regulator (Report) Bill sets forth the envisaged role of the regulator who will be empowered to police the Internet, if and when the Online Harms Act comes into force. OFCOM have been selected as the regulator of online service operators which the proposed legislation defines as any Internet service or platform enabling human beings to communicate or exchange ideas. This includes web hosts, because they host websites which have comment sections and forums.

The scope of the proposed censorship grid is limitless. OFCOM will have a the power to regulate, “any other harms that OFCOM deem appropriate.” 

In the meantime, the CCDH are part of the network of so called fact checkers and censors who are using their incredible and seemingly disproportionate influence, suddenly garnered from nowhere, to police opinion on the social media platforms. We will explore how this occurred in more detail in Part 2.

The White Paper, which the Act will be based upon, clearly identifies any and all criticism of vaccines as a target for the censorship network:

Inaccurate information, regardless of intent, can be harmful – for example the spread of inaccurate anti-vaccination messaging online poses a risk to public health. The government is particularly worried about disinformation……Disinformation threatens these values and principles, and can threaten public safety, undermine national security, fracture community cohesion and reduce trust”

Like the government, the CCDH are careful not to mention any of the scientific or historical evidence which questions vaccine efficacy and safety. Instead, they label all who do cite this evidence as radical extremists.

The opening statement in the CCDH’s vaccine propaganda claims:

Vaccines are one of the most consequential, safe, efficient and effective medical discoveries in history. Few other inventions have saved so many lives.”

While it is true that some vaccines have been beneficial in the eradication of disease, there is little evidence that vaccines alone have achieved this. The vast majority of the reduction in mortality rates occurred as a result of broader public health improvements, prior to the widespread use of vaccines.

While the CCDH blithely claim all vaccines are “safe,” they are the only medical discovery where the manufacturers have blanket indemnification against any loss from injury claims. It is not an act of “hate” to ask why this needs to be the case if they are so safe.

The CCDH state that anyone who asks such questions has fringe and extremist views. They claim consideration of vaccine safety and efficacy should not be permitted and sharing any information or evidence which questions vaccines should be banned. For example, they deny people’s right to know any of the information we are about to discuss. They claim it is all hate driven disinformation which presents a threat to national security.

When trialling a vaccine, inoculated animal test subjects can be deliberately exposed to the targeted virus in a challenge trial. The results from challenge trials have blighted all previous attempts to develop a SARS-CoV vaccine.

While the test subjects developed the hoped for antibodies and proteins, when they were challenged with the virus their immune systems were found to be hypersensitive. This induced life threatening illness and caused a range of serious health conditions.

The interferon gamma (IFN-y) induced protein IP10, encoded in humans by the CXCL10 gene, is thought to be a possible cause of the cytokine storm which leads to Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Persistent high levels of IP10 send the immune system into overdrive. Much of the immunopathological damage sustained by a small minority of SARS infected patients is thought to arise as a consequence of interferon gamma (IFN-y) related cytokine storms. Italian researchers noted:

Accumulating studies indicated that the cytokine storm caused by SARS is mainly related to IL-1β, IL-6, IL12A, IFN-γ, IP10 and MCP1, and the cytokine storm caused by MERS is mainly related to IFNγ, TNFα, IL15 and IL17A.”

It is therefore somewhat concerning that during the challenge trials for the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222 SARS-CoV-2) vaccine, currently being developed in by Atrazeneca and Oxford University, the following was noted:

Cytokines in serum were analysed after challenge to monitor immune responses. We observed an upregulation [increased cellular response] in IFN-γ at 1 DPI in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccinated animals, but not in control animals.”

While an upregulation in IFN-y potentially has both beneficial and harmful inflammatory effects, we don’t know what the long term IP10 (CXCL10) levels for inoculated test subjects were because it wasn’t investigated in the vaccine trials. However, an upregulation in IFN-y suggests the possibility of the overexpression of the potentially lethal cytokine storm inducing CXCL10.

The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 study only checked IFN-y upregulation for one day post inoculation (1 DPI). Then again, this really isn’t of any concern for the multinational corporations, like Astrazeneca, who make vaccines. As usual, they have been given immunity from prosecution. They have no liability for vaccine injury, and therefore have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.

Having found these results in all of the 6 macaque monkeys they inoculated, the Astrazeneca Oxford team felt this was nothing to worry about and went ahead with large scale human trials. The results of these trials raised further reason for concern.

Contrary to the claims made by the mainstream media (MSM), this was not a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial (RCT). Instead of an inert placebo, the human test subjects were either given the Astrazeneca / Oxford vaccine or the MenACWY vaccine.

The possible side effects of the MenACWY vaccine include headaches, nausea, fever, elevated heart rate, loss of consciousness, paralysis and seizures. Using the MenACWY vaccine as your control, to measure relative safety, will probably provide a favourable safety profile providing the recipient of your new vaccine doesn’t immediately drop dead the moment you inoculate them.

The people who were selected for the Astrazeneca / Oxford Phase 1 and initial Phase 2 trial were all in good health and aged between 18 – 55 years. The median age of the participants was 35 yrs. The average age for those requiring COVID 19 hospital treatment is at least 60 years.

COVID 19 risks increase appreciably with age. In the UK, more than 89% of those who have died “with” COVID 19 were over 65 years old. 

The UK government have announced their intention to initially vaccinate those in the at risk group and front line key workers. These are primarily older people with serious comorbidity.

With the exception of younger key workers, the initial phases of the trials didn’t test the vaccine with the demographic who will be the first to receive it. While the trials have now been expanded to include some older people and children, early results indicate the need for considerable caution.

Of the vaccinated group 70% reported fatigue, 68% headaches, 60% had muscle pain and more than 50% ran a fever. In addition, 9% reported temperatures of at least 38°C and an alarming 1% reported a high fever of more than 39°C.

While researchers stated that these adverse reaction were “well tolerated,” by the relatively young and healthy test subjects, the same cannot simply be assumed for older at risk groups.

These adverse reactions present a far greater health risk to the most vulnerable in society. The demographic which the vaccine is supposed to protect.

These early trial outcomes have been met with universal, uncritical praise by the UK MSM because the Astrazeneca / Oxford vaccine did stimulate an immune response. However, evidence is now emerging that up to 60% of the population may already have general immunity. If this is the case, the relative benefit to vulnerable people, in light of the adverse reactions, would appear questionable.

According to the CCDH none of these concerns have any basis in either fact or science. By urging the precautionary principle, I am one among millions labelled as a radical extremists by the CCDH.

CCDH FACT LITE CLAPTRAP

The CCDH state that SARS-CoV-2 is:

…a pandemic that will only be overcome by the most ambitious vaccination programme in human history.”

This is not a fact. It is merely the CCDH’s opinion. One that ignores the scientific evidence which shows that people who have already been exposed to other coronavirus strains, which is pretty much the entire population, have developed some level of T-Cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

However, unlike the CCDH, I think they have every right to express their opinion. Just as I and millions of others have every right to express ours.

In a free and open democratic society, that values freedom of speech and expression, the dialectic can be used to exchange logical arguments to arrive at new knowledge and understanding. This is not possible in Technofascist State. Opinions are censored to protect the interests of the public-private partnership.

Like most good propaganda there are elements of truth within the CCDH’s report. They quite rightly highlight that some leading so called anti-vaxxers are trying to make money from the growing number of people who question vaccines. While paywall protected content and internet marketing on social media are perfectly legitimate business models, we should be more sceptical of claims made by those who have a vested commercial interest. Like pharmaceutical corporations for example.

Central to the CCDH’s vaccine propaganda is their questionable estimate of the profits made by some who doubt vaccines. They claim this is evidence that all who have concerns about vaccines are quacks and charlatans.

The CCDH allege that the worst offenders leverage economic influence with social media giants to “radicalise” gullible fools into becoming hate filled “extremists.” This premise is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons.

Not a shred of evidence that this is how radicalisation works

Firstly, if we agree with the CCDH that possible financial incentives render all associated opinion on a subject null and void, we can reject the majority of pro vaccine arguments outright. The pharmaceutical industry’s U.S. social media ad-spend is projected to exceed $4 Bn in 2020.

In the U.S. alone, they invest more than $30 Bn annually on MSM advertising and devote more resources to political lobbying than any other industry.

However, while the CCDH insist that the paltry sums generated by the alleged anti-vaxxer fraudsters exposes their racket, it makes no mention at all of the staggering economic power of vaccine manufacturers. The profits to be made from the estimated $46.9 Bn global vaccine market, conservatively projected to eclipse £107 Bn by 2027, are completely irrelevant. Or so the CCDH would have you believe.

While good propaganda contains elements of truth, it is mainly disinformation. The CCDH make the following claim:

The format of groups makes their members ripe for the process of radicalisation…These secret spaces allow for deeper radicalisation.”

This is unadulterated pseudo-scientific claptrap. According to the Cambridge English dictionary “radicalisation” is defined as follows:

The action or process of making someone become more radical in their political or religious beliefs”

Questioning the efficacy and safety of vaccines is a public health issue, neither a political nor a religious belief. The CCDH use of the word “radicalisation” is nothing other than a cynical attempt to associate people who have some concerns about pharmaceuticals with extremism and ultimately terrorism.

This is deliberately deceptive language from the CCDH. Even if we accept their preposterous notion that asking questions about a drug can ever be “extremist”, there is absolutely no evidence at all that individuals can be radicalised simply by talking to people online.

The most complete scientific review of the research literature into supposed online radicalisation was carried out by a team at Deakin University. They found no evidence that using Facebook, Twitter or Instagram turned people into extremists.

The former U.N. Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson issued a report to the U.N. in which he said:

There is no authoritative statistical data on the pathways towards individual radicalisation.”

CCDH TAKE HYPOCRISY TO A NEW LEVEL

In the space of a few months the CCDH have been instrumental in censoring a number of leading websites, writers and broadcasters they don’t agree with. The technofascist book burning presents a far greater threat to our “way of life” than any of the information they have been instrumental in censoring.

Cited as “experts” by the mainstream media and policy makers, their CEO Imran Ahmed has recently been appointed to the Steering Committee of the UK government’s Commission on Countering Extremism Task Force (CCETF).

The assumed role, backed by the public-private corporate State, of the CCETF, and the CCDH, is that they will gather the evidence of “hateful” opinion. Their subjective judgement will then be used to form policy and censor information.

The UK government’s Commission on Countering Extremism (CCE) 2019 Document called Challenging Hateful Extremism defined, what they call, hateful extremism as follows:

• Behaviours that can incite and amplify hate, or engage in persistent hatred, or equivocate about and make the moral case for violence;

• And that draw on hateful, hostile or supremacist beliefs directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to the wellbeing, survival or success of an in-group;

• And that cause, or are likely to cause, harm to individuals, communities or wider society.

In her forward to the report, the CCE lead commissioner Sara Khan noted:

There is a fear that countering extremism can undermine civil liberties and in particular, freedom of expression……. Authoritarian regimes have used ‘counter terrorism’ and ‘counter extremism’ to silence dissent and criticism. Hateful extremists seek to restrict individual liberties and curtail the fundamental freedoms that define our country.”

Our inalienable rights and freedom are protected by our written codified constitution of 1215

In Britain our national identity is, in great part, founded upon our shared belief in fundamental freedoms. These were recorded as the custom of the people in our written, codified constitution the Magna Carta.

Parliamentarians have done everything they possibly can to deny the existence of this codified written constitution for 800 years. They falsely claim the supremacy of Parliament and have unnecessarily re-written their version of our constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights and freedoms in, among other declarations and Acts, the 1998 Human Rights Act.

These rights and freedoms include freedom of expression (eg. freedom of speech and publication both online and off), the right to a fair trial, freedom of thought and belief, freedom of assembly and association, respect for privacy (including of information) and protection from discrimination in respect to these rights.

Unlike an inviolable constitution, like the Magna Carta, legislation is simply a set of rules written by governments. It means nothing. Legislation can be rewritten, overturned or ignored as any government of the day sees fit.

For example, the recent 2020 Coronavirus Act not only suspends all alleged democracy, it removes the freedom of association, the right of physical and data privacy and reinforces existing powers of detention without trial.

Clauses about national security and public health in the 1998 Human Right’s Act, enable government to claim the authority to ignore all our rights. Any government’s legislative protections of our freedoms and rights aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

If we truly valued our constitutional customs, freedoms and rights this wouldn’t be possible. However, we don’t and so government can do anything they like to us anytime they wish. Nonetheless, these so called freedoms and rights are supposedly important to the self appointed truth tellers at the CCE, its Task Force and the CCDH.

These pretensions to care about rights and freedom take hypocrisy to a new level. CCDH state:

CCDH have also forced social media companies to…..remove hateful or dangerous speech…….solutions have proven effective against a number of different types of hate and misinformation, like identity-based hate, climate change denial and health misinformation. The aim is to produce practicable, efficient and scalable strategies and tactics to counter hate and misinformation globally.”

The CCDH and their global partners determine what constitutes misinformation and disinformation; they identify who is and who isn’t a fringe movement; they say what constitutes hate and what doesn’t; they decide what the scientific consensus is and they are the arbiters of all truth, the sole custodians of reality and they determine what you can or cannot say. Rights and freedoms be damned.

Never a good sign and typical of Fascism.

The CCDH are among those who seek to restrict individual liberties and curtail the fundamental freedoms that define our country; they espouse supremacist beliefs, as only they, and the burgeoning technofascist State they represent, can ever possibly be right; they direct their hate at an out-group, in this instance anyone who questions vaccines; they perceive the groups they hate as a threat to the wellbeing, survival or success of an in-group, that in-group is the government and its globalist corporate sponsors; their dangerous demonisation of people, their intolerance, deceptions, persecution and censorship already has and will cause harm to individuals, communities or wider society and in their leader, Imran Ahmed , they advocate imprisonment for those he labels anti-vaxxers, which is an act of violence.

If we accept the Commission on Countering Extremism definition then the CCDH, and associated State committees, are “hateful extremists.” But what purpose do such counterproductive and irrational labels have?

Everyone, including the CCE and the CCDH, have the right to express their views and partake in robust and open debate. However, the CCDH supremacist beliefs render them incapable of doing so, as they cannot tolerate anything which contradicts or challenges their ideology and objectives.

By looking at the sprawling web of policy makers, thinks tanks and corporate interests, which form the in-group the CCDH represent, we can reveal exactly who these supremacists are. With the willing complicity of this dangerous body we call government, absent any democratic mandate, the CCDH have already assumed authority and are systematically removing our freedoms while ignoring our rights.

We need to familiarise ourselves with these people who claim exclusive possession of all truth. We are heading towards a real Fascist State and, in Part 2, we’ll take a look at some of those who are taking us there.

You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog In This Together

https://ift.tt/2PTK2rN
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2PTK2rN
via IFTTT

Inside The Center For Cancel Culture And Digital Hypocrisy, Part 1