Category Archives: Free Speech

The trial of John Doe vs. [Censored]

by Jon Rappoport

August 29, 2017

The trial took place in a quiet empty room, in an underground bunker, at an undisclosed location in [Censored].

The Judge sat behind a high table. John Doe stood below him.

Judge: You are John Doe? You have a website called Doe Doe?

Doe: Yes, Your Honor. May I know your name?

Judge: Of course. It’s Judge.

Doe: That’s your title.

Judge: It’s also my name.

Doe: You’re Judge Judge?

Judge: Correct. Now, let’s get down to business. You’re the author of an article you posted on your site. The title of the article was, “A Catalog of Sexual Assaults and Other Crimes Committed by Migrants in [Censored], 2015-2017.” The subtitle was, “Soaring Migrant Crime Rate Is a National Disaster—[Censored] Women Fear for Their Safety.”

Doe: Yes.

Judge: How did you assemble this “catalog?”

Doe: I cited articles in the [Censored] press. I obtained access to police reports in [Censored]. I interviewed over two hundred citizens and their families. I interviewed law-enforcement officials.

Judge: You traveled to [Censored].

Doe: Correct.

Judge: And as you were exiting the country, you were detained by [Censored] Customs and Immigration and told your visa was canceled and you were banned from returning to the country.

Doe: That’s true.

Judge: That’s certainly a black mark against you.

Doe: I don’t see it that way. The government didn’t want me to accumulate all that information and spread it.

Judge: You’re aware of a foundation called “Anti-Hate-Crime Speech?”

Doe: I am.

Judge: The foundation was formed by GoogleFacebookTwitterYouTubeFooFooShooShooAmazonStarbucksMerckTheCIA
FoundationForBetterLiving and 167 other groups.

Doe: So I understand.

Judge: And several of those groups canceled your donation account, de-monetized your videos, deleted your site from six search engines, and convinced a local delivery service to stop bringing pizza to your house.

Doe: Right.

Judge: You’re accused of hate speech against immigrants.

Doe: I published facts. I wasn’t speaking against anyone off the cuff.

Judge: But that’s how it was interpreted. Your article was incendiary, because it inspired a negative view of immigration.

Doe: Inspired? I wrote facts. How others took those facts was their business.

Judge: It’s a question of the greater good. Exposing a few cases of wrongdoing versus alarming and biasing a whole population.

Doe: There is another element. Suppressing important information. Keeping people from seeing what’s happening to their communities and their nation.

Judge: Hate speech cannot be tolerated.

Doe: Who says it’s hate speech?

Judge: A non-profit in Alabama. Two media outlets. They’ve been hired by the Anti-Hate-Crime Speech Foundation to scour articles and identify hate.

Doe: Well, they’re wrong.

Judge: They can’t be wrong.

Doe: Why not?

Judge: Because they’re authorities.

Doe: According to whom?

Judge: These groups are setting a standard. Someone has to.

Doe: How about someone else setting a standard?

Judge: Who would that be?

Doe: The point is, I was exercising my 1st Amendment rights.

Judge: Your what?

Doe: I have a right to speak and write.

Judge: Not if it upsets the good order of the community and causes suffering on the part of people associated with those you accuse of committing serious crimes.

Doe: I disagree. And why shouldn’t I disturb “the good order” if the order is ill-advised and based on the fear of speaking out?

Judge: Let me explain something, Mr. Doe. You have created a generality of hatred.

Doe: A what?

Judge: By publishing your article, you created a generality of negative reaction against a whole group.

Doe: I reported facts, not generalities.

Judge: What you reported can’t be divorced from the effect it had on other people.

Doe: Of course it can. My work didn’t have an automatic effect on other people. They inferred whatever they inferred from my article.

Judge: The overriding principle is: everything is connected to everything.

Doe: You lost me there, sir.

Judge: Everyone in this world is connected and interdependent. Therefore, whatever you do spreads like ink on a blotter.

Doe: How can that be? I gathered specific facts. Those facts don’t apply to all people.

Judge: That’s the old view of things. Now we know that all of us are together as One. A charge against a few is a charge against many.

Doe: That’s illogical. It’s also dangerous. If what you’re saying were true, no one could speak out…

Judge: But you see, there is an important exception to the general rule. I have a list of groups. Certain groups are protected against accusation or slander. Other groups may be accused. In fact, they must be accused.

Doe: Where did you get the list?

Judge: From our leaders.

Doe: Our who?

Judge: Leaders. The people who have knowledge of these matters. The people who understand history. The people who are—

Doe: I see. I exposed certain members of a group that can’t be accused.

Judge: Correct.

Doe: This is over-complicated. I come back to the principle of free speech.

Judge: There is no such principle. At one time, there may have been, but not anymore.

Doe: You’re losing me again, sir.

Judge: It’s quite simple, really.

At this point, six men in black masks holding rifles and burning torches entered the room. One of the men said, “This proceeding is over. We are [Censored]. We have taken the sacred oath of [Censored]. We are cells of the body of the Soros.

Judge: Welcome. Was your oath the [Censored]?

Masked Man: Yes.

Judge: I, too, have taken the oath of the [Censored]. We are One. What message do you bring?

Masked Man: Our leader instructs us to tell you that the defendant, John Doe, is to be sentenced to six days without food or water in the burning desert of [Censored], after which he will be transported to a re-education camp in [Censored], where he will undergo a one-year period of [Censored]. This is the Word.

Judge: I see. Very well. My sentence is thusly made.

Doe: You take orders from these men, Your Honor?

Judge: These men and I are not separate. We are One.

Doe: How did that happen?

Judge: Once upon a time, we were losers. Now we are winners. We overthrew the old order and instituted a new one.

Doe: That must have taken a great deal of planning.

Judge: Decades. More.

Doe: Why haven’t I heard about it?

Judge: Because you are one of those people who would have tried to expose our agenda. Suffice it to say, we worked in secret. We introduced chaos. As just one strategy of many, and I only mention it because it’s one of my favorites, we introduced, into the culture, a long series of absurd rulings and situations that defy logic and rationality. Such rulings paralyze the mind. The mind retreats. It becomes passive. Quiescent. A grandmother grows vegetables on her lawn. She is hauled into court and prosecuted for defacing the appearance of the neighborhood. A child brings a pastry to school and bites it into the shape of what might look like a gun. The child is suspended. Colleges offer rooms with dolls and hot chocolate to students who are triggered by a pronoun. A college student council decides that all white people are demons and must be excluded from decision-making roles. A four-year-old child is encouraged to talk with his parents about the child’s “choice” to change his gender. A manual used by elementary school teachers suggests discussions on all possible forms of sexual intercourse, even sex with animals. Parents are told their vaccinated children are protected from disease, but must not play with unvaccinated children, because then they could get sick, even though they are protected. A state which is in debt to the tune of half a trillion dollars proposes accepting immigrants without limit and giving them many government services without charge. Any politician who speaks with a Russian faces a potential charge of trading with the enemy. Do I need to go on? Over time, one fantastic and absurd thing after another is piled up upon the consciousness of the public, until the insanity reaches to the sky. What is the effect of all that? The befuddled public surrenders and becomes passive. And then we come in behind that and impose our agenda.

Masked Man: Enough. We will remove the defendant now and take him to [Censored].

Judge: Of course.

Doe: So I’m not really guilty.

Judge: You are what we say you are. That overrides all questions of guilt or innocence. There is no more guilt or innocence. There are only rulings. For centuries, guilt and innocence have been twisted by men in power to suit their own ends. We have stopped that. We have stopped the corruption. Now we make decisions based on the greater good. We are the pure ones. We have no agenda except service to the people.

Doe: You’re destroyers.

Judge: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

Doe: You’re going to lose.

Judge: Why is that, Mr. Doe?

Doe: You’ll go too far. You have no idea what people will do when you put them against the wall. That passivity you spoke of is going to evaporate.

Judge: We will see. We will see.

Doe: Are you even human?

Judge: Of course I am. Do you think I’m AI android number 3012-6-B, third generation, extruded at Factory [Censored], produced by [Censored] in accordance with regulations under the [Censored] code of [Censored]…?

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Why the political Left feels emboldened to shut down free speech

Why the political Left feels emboldened to shut down free speech

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2017

First of all, when I talk about the so-called political Left, I’m talking about people who are firmly in the Globalist camp. They may not know they are, but they are.

The Globalists work through various versions of socialism and quasi-socialism and Communism and Marxism and “free the people” and all sorts of other slogans and guiding ideas. These political philosophies and strategies have nothing to do with Globalism per se—they’re just provisional tactics Globalists use to gain power, because power is the goal. Their system is top-heavy control under a variety of names and deceptions. That’s just the way it is.

The Globalists are run by crony capitalists at the top who stole their way to riches and then turned around and decided to limit the game, so they would remain in charge. Their approach is to appear humane. It’s a lie. Their goal is straightforward: they want to make the planet one nation, which they operate like a machine. The stand for The Machine, and against life.

The political Left, at ground level, is clueless about all of this. They’re sucked in by the humane propaganda. They look to a utopia where nobody has to work or earn money. Many of these ground troops are hoping and dreaming about that day because they’re convinced they can’t make it in an open market. That, too, is just the way it is.

Now they’re emboldened to shut down free speech, meaning speech and language and words and ideas they don’t like, because…

They’re finding out they can.

That’s the simple answer.

They can.

It gives them a sense of power they haven’t felt. They can do “big things.” They can riot and throw bricks through store windows and shut down campus speeches and whine and cry about trigger words and safe spaces and get away with it. They can have an impact. They’ve never experienced that before.

It moves the adrenaline. It moves the blood. It lights a fire.

If no one keeps free speech available, if no one cares about the Constitution, the field of operation is a grand opportunity: Shut down free speech. It feels real. It seems important. There’s a direct cause-and-effect result. WE SCREAMED AND PROTESTED AND DEMANDED AND RIOTED AND THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE WENT ALONG WITH US. THEY SHUT DOWN WHAT WE DON’T LIKE.

So the close-out tactic becomes fashionable. The thing to do. The trendy action. It’s a sport. “I can’t play on a team or study or think or contemplate what I really want to do in life, but I can do this. I can close people’s mouths.”

And higher on the Globalist food chain, there are people who are praising the end of the 1st Amendment. This gives the clueless ground troops a jolt of confidence. This tells the troops they’re really working toward a better society and a better world. “Bad people are saying bad things. If I stop the bad people, humanity will make progress…”

It’s easy to see how a dumbed-down education system permits such a “stop the bad people” formulation to come into existence and bloom like a poisonous plant.

Instead of a system that tries to raise students up and make them smarter, so they can discover where the real political power is in this world and what that power is trying to achieve, the op is all about seeking the lowest common denominator, and pushing down young minds to a primitive “good vs. bad” notion with the goal of censoring the bad into extinction.

The ground troops of the censorship op are receiving elite support. That’s the catch:

“We, the leaders, are on your side in the struggle to reach a better future, and in order to do that we have to make you as dumb as a rock, while you actually believe you’re smart and on the cutting edge.”

Of course, across the planet, oppression of populations is quite real. Is the solution opening up markets to something resembling freedom; or is it handing over control to governments, who collude with each other and with mega-corporations and banks, to institute a centralized worldwide system of production and distribution of goods and services?

“A better world is at hand. Soon we will create a specific center that rules One Economy for All. We will determine what is manufactured and who will benefit. We will decide who eats and who goes hungry. We will decide how much energy each person can consume in a given time period. We will act for the greatest good. We will be kind. Count on us.”

If you actually framed the future in those terms, and if the people who are trying to shut down free speech actually understood they were serving that master, would they continue their attack against open speech and debate?

It’s hard to tell. People can reach such levels of mindless non-comprehension, they no longer care. They’ve crossed the line. Pulling them back from the abyss is a herculean task.

Better to keep promoting free speech and engaging in it.

In the long run, freedom is more contagious than the appetite for destruction. Sometimes the long run is very long, but it doesn’t matter.

As an example, independent media will survive, despite all attempts to censor it.

If indeed the recent temporary shutdown of my website, which is now back up and running, was an illustration of someone’s censorship—well, I’m still here.

Overall, the struggle of centuries to establish individual freedom are not in vain, must not be in vain. Once again we are seeing that what we take for granted is not automatic. We must assert our rights. We must not stop.

The lesson is not always easy. But we have to learn it.

As always, there are people who can’t stand freedom. They recoil from it, as if it is a threat to their very survival. Having sunk to such a low level, they attack the basis of life itself.

So be it.

We’re not going anywhere.

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Ann Coulter UC Berkeley clash reveals massive covert op

Ann Coulter UC Berkeley clash reveals massive covert op

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2017

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter’s scheduled speech at the U of California Berkeley is off, it’s on, it’s been delayed, the student groups sponsoring her appearance are suing the University, she’ll speak indoors, she’ll speak outdoors, and on it goes.

University officials have said they can’t guarantee Coulter’s security, unless, apparently, she gives her speech during the week in the afternoon while most students are studying for their final exams. Why don’t they schedule her talk somewhere in Alaska at three in the morning? That’ll work, and free speech will emerge victorious.

Aside from paid agitators brought in from the outside by George Soros money, the student body at the University is opposed to Coulter speaking, or they’re too passive to care, or they’re too cowed to step up and demand she has the right to air her ideas.

Here is the op: the University bosses have brought all this on themselves. Their claim that they can’t protect Coulter may be true, but that’s because, for decades, professors have been teaching crap and pap and programmatic socialism and various forms of collectivism, and they have purposely neglected the Bill of Rights and individual freedom.

University bosses have been seeding departments with teachers who are so far to the Left they can’t get dressed in the morning without government aid. And the radical Left is all about debate only in the sense that they want to curtail it, shut it down, destroy dissident voices, and thereby save the world.

So naturally, in the fullness of time, students are going to follow suit and get in line. Rational discussion of opposing ideas? Never heard of it. Why in the world would they allow Ann Coulter on campus to spread dangerous thoughts?

Dangerous=someone somehow might start to think on his/her own, against the prevailing tide.

There is no room for this at UC Berkeley.

Behind this buzzing swarming cloud of totalitarian policy, there are, of course, genuine issues students could be investigating. But that must not happen. I’m talking about money, as in: who is sponsoring research projects at Berkeley? Projects related to the war machine; psychiatric “mental health” toxic-drug research; GMO research; and other mega-corporate favorites.

For example, the book, “Engineering and War: Militarism, Ethics, Institutions, Alternatives,” mentions a $70 million program that links no less than 200 US colleges in a Homeland Security program, to establish a DHS “center of excellence.” “Experts” from UC Berkeley are involved. What’s that all about? Colleges all over the US are cooperating and collaborating.

“Well, let’s keep that project quiet. Instead, let’s have students protesting and rioting against free speech. Let’s have them feeling triggered and demanding safe spaces where they can drink hot chocolate and play with model trains and dolls.”

For many decades, US colleges have been feeding from a federal money trench to aid and abet the national security state. That would include expanding surveillance on American citizens, profiling, and various forms of propaganda, for starters. If you factor in DARPA, the research arm of the Pentagon, you would be talking about research on the brain and cutting edge mind control.

But instead, no, don’t look there; keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley. Save humanity.

As I reported several months ago, 25% of US college students, last year, were diagnosed or treated for a mental disorder. Let’s not have students thinking about that. Let’s not have them thinking about the toxic effects of the psychiatric drugs. No. Let’s not have them realize they’re guinea pigs in an unending op to addle their brains.

Instead, let’s have them keep Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley.

And certainly, as colleges and universities across the US raise their tuition and matriculating costs to the sky—BECAUSE the federal government has a deep-pockets student loan program—let’s not make that connection. Instead, let’s saddle college graduates with massive debt.

As they walk off campus for the last time, contemplating their future of trying to pay down that debt, they can congratulate themselves, because they kept Ann Coulter from coming to Berkeley.

And thus saved the world.

“What did you do at college, Daddy?”

“You mean way back when, before I went on Welfare? I kept a fascist from giving a speech. I can’t remember her name now. But she was a threat, believe me. We had guts. It took a few thousand of us to keep her away. There were rumors she was bringing a few tanks and weaponized anthrax with her…”

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Mike Adams, Alex Jones, and the war against the 1st Amendment

Mike Adams, Alex Jones, and the war against the 1st Amendment

Top 12 reasons for eliminating free speech

by Jon Rappoport

March 2, 2017

“Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges.” (Blazing Saddles, 1974)

Free speech? We don’t need no stinking free speech.

In the wake of the economic and political censorship imposed on infowars and Natural News (Google’s delisting of Natural News has now been lifted), it’s become apparent that free speech is passe. Why did we ever need it? Let’s get rid of that illusion.

Let’s embrace, instead, the consensus of virtue-signaling heroes.

If something is offensive, rub it out.

In Alex Jones’ case, a large company that places ads, adroll, decided to drop Jones’ site, infowars, as a client. The decision still stands. The loss of revenue for infowars is estimated at $3 million.

Here are the top 12 reasons for eliminating free speech.

ONE: “I’m triggered by what you just said. Stop talking.”

TWO: People who say certain things could give other people the wrong ideas.

THREE: People can’t be allowed to make up their own minds about what other people say.

FOUR: If you don’t like what people are going to say, it’s more effective to shut them up, rather than letting them say it.

FIVE: It’s fun to shut people up when you don’t like them.

SIX: It’s virtuous to shut people up when their ideas are harmful.

SEVEN: If you’re too ignorant to be able to debate another person, your only sensible option is to shut him up.

EIGHT: Rational debate is useless. People don’t have time for it, and they don’t base their actions on it. Therefore, take a short cut and shut people up when they say what you don’t want them to say.

NINE: Sometimes people will pay you to shut other people up. This is a way to make a living.

TEN: The Constitution is just a piece of paper. Basing your actions on it is a fool’s errand. The Constitution is old. Nothing old is good.

ELEVEN: Fake news is misleading and dangerous. Ban fake news. Let the government and corporations decide what is fake.

TWELVE: Eventually, if enough free speech is shut down, only a few hundred people would speak or write. This would be good. The rest of the people would only shout, scream, and throw rocks through store windows.

Obviously, we need Congress to pass new laws, so we can somehow draft these twelve elements of a New Society and enforce them.

Alex Jones and Mike Adams are prime examples of the dangers of free speech. Both men, in their own way, go against the grain. They expose political, economic, social, medical, military crimes. Who gave them the right to do that? Who allowed this to happen?

Perhaps there is a thirteenth reason to ban free speech lurking in the shadows: Those who speak or write dangerously are obviously mentally ill. They need treatment. They must have treatment. In this way, they can be rehabilitated. It would be the humanitarian thing to do. Then, some day, you would see Mike and Alex speaking on behalf of the Deep State. They would urge all citizens to adopt conformist attitudes and practices. They would praise the coming utopia. They would profess love for collectivism. They would promote Globalist Central Planning and Distribution for all goods and services on planet Earth. Tensions would relax. Smiles would abound. A culture of Nice would triumph. Mike and Alex could form The Universal Church of Polite.

Isn’t that what we all want?

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Mike Adams’ Natural News restored by Google after massive takedown

Mike Adams’ Natural News restored by Goggle after massive takedown

I was shocked, but not surprised, by the relatively small number of independent news sites that came to Mike’s defense. Has the 1st Amendment become a faded memory?

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2017

For six days, Google shut down all listings for Natural News.

Google gave no rational explanation. Then, again with no comprehensible reason, Google restored Natural News.

To say this behavior was deranged would be a vast understatement.

It’s possible that the outpouring of protests after the takedown threw Google back on their heels, and they gave in.

But the game is not over. Google could go off on another witch hunt. They’ve proved they’re quite capable of it.

The Natural News debacle stems, in part, from the absurd war against “fake news.” Major media, the prime-cut purveyors of fake news, launched the war after they were left with egg on their faces in the wake of the presidential election. They had to find scapegoats. They had to explain their failure to predict the winner. They had to explain why they overtly supported Hillary Clinton throughout the campaign. They had to do something, anything, in order to deflect blame and derision.

So the Russia-Trump-WikiLeaks-fake news narrative was launched out of the crypts of the Washington Post, New York Times, and other big-time echo chambers.

Natural News was placed in the crosshairs and assailed as a pro-Trump fake news site.

We shouldn’t overlook the fact, as well, that Mike has carried out a highly successful and devastating attack on the medical cartel for years. So-called “science blogs” have been after him, hammer and tongs.

Mike writes: “After six days of being blacklisted by Google, the NaturalNews.com website has been restored to Google’s search results. The action by Google follows the largest and most vocal backlash against Google’s de-listing of any website in the history of the company [Google], and it has sparked many new discussions and debates about search engines, censorship and free speech.”

“For the record, there was never any allegation or evidence that Natural News had intentionally violated Google’s webmaster guidelines. While Google said we were being flagged for a so-called ‘sneaky mobile redirect’ on a very small number of pages in a subdomain (blogs.naturalnews.com) which were created by outside bloggers, Google went to the extraordinary step of banning the entire NaturalNews.com root domain and all its subdomains — a step that would never have been applied to CNN, Huffington Post or other popular news websites. In fact, a Natural News investigation showed that violations identified involving websites like HuffPo, Forbes and CNN did not result in the same kind of blacklisting that was applied to Natural News.” [emphasis in the original]

“Furthermore, while Google did make an effort to provide us with one URL that they said flagged this mobile redirect, to date there hasn’t been a single SEO expert or engineer who could reproduce the supposed redirect issue.” [emphasis in the original]

“Even more disturbingly, when we went to the Google product webmaster forum to ask for help identifying this issue, we were insulted, mocked and accused of lying by Google’s supporters who behaved like a pack of jackals rather than search engine professionals.”

“Through this entire process, Natural News was constantly being called a liar for failing to remove something that Google flatly refused to identify. In essence, we were charged with a ‘crime’ by Google, yet Google refused to provide any details of the crime, nor any evidence of the crime, nor any tool whereby we could reproduce Google’s claimed ‘redirect’.”

“To call this process extremely frustrating for webmasters is an understatement. I continue to believe that Natural News was targeted by Google due to the content of our speech which supports President Trump… and that the ‘sneaky mobile redirects’ issue was merely the justification used by Google to de-list the entire NaturalNews.com website. Google no doubt disagrees with this assessment and says it was just a technical issue, yet we are not aware of any other situation in which a minor technical issue on a subdomain resulted in Google blacklisting the entire ROOT domain of a major publisher, with 140,000+ pages of quality content. Natural News appears to be the only website of its size that has ever been subjected to this extreme censorship for such a minor technical issue on pages posted years ago by bloggers on a subdomain.” [emphasis in the original]

“…No one denies, for example, that Google’s top executives such as Eric Schmidt were working directly with the Hillary Clinton campaign which Natural News opposed. This has all been fully documented by Wikileaks.”

“Had Natural News been a pro-Clinton, ‘progressive’ website, I believe a minor technical glitch on some subdomain blog pages from years ago would have been given a pass. After all, the final decision to blacklist [by] Google was a human decision — called a ‘Manual Action’ by Google — which means someone at Google decided to penalize Natural News for something that was not flagged by any Google algorithm.” [emphasis in the original]

My comments:

In a world where education has become an exercise in injecting values into students’ heads, people have lost the mental capacity to distinguish between disagreement and censorship. Now, it’s “I disagree with you so I want to shut you up by any means.”

Many independent news sites decided to ignore Google’s censorship of Mike and Natural News. They, too, failed to establish a firm defense of free speech.

Some of these independent sites, knowing what Natural News has done to attack conventional medicine and the medical cartel, decided to stand back and remain silent, because they consider medical information a holy of holies. They will attack major media on many issues, but The Medical isn’t one of them. They’re afraid to explore this area, discover shocking truths, publish those truths, and then open themselves to heavy criticism.

Then, of course, there is the simple fear that Google will censor them, too. Google, the all-powerful Ministry of Truth. Big Brother.

Get this straight. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are go-to allies for major media. The biggest news operations look to these allies for help in censoring information they want to bury. It’s a joint operation.

To the casual observer, it seems that pro-Trump messages are what the Ministry wants to crush. And that’s true. But it’s only the beginning. There are vast oceans of information Big Brother wants to hide.

Oceans, however, don’t disappear.

Water runs deep. And it gets in everywhere.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Would you censor Alex Jones and Mike Adams if you could?

Would you censor Alex Jones and Mike Adams if you could?

by Jon Rappoport

February 27, 2017

I write this in the wake of Google’s takedown of Mike Adams’ Natural News, and adroll.com’s decision to stop placing product-ads for Alex Jones’ InfoWars. These are momentous events.

(Update, 2/28/2017: Google reinstates NatrualNews.com domain to its search engine listings.)

In the current climate, there are MANY people who would, at the drop of a hat, censor and erase a news outlet if they could. And they would believe they’re doing Good.

Their knowledge of the 1st Amendment and its implications? Zero. Free speech? Who cares?

Much better to delete, erase, scream, light fires, turn over cars, block speakers, shout them down.

Here are several statements about free speech written by non-screamers:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment to the United States Constitution. December 15, 1791)

“There is nothing so fretting and vexatious, nothing so justly TERRIBLE to tyrants, and their tools and abettors, as a FREE PRESS.” (Samuel Adams, 1768)

“Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.” (Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992)

But you see, there are now many groups who have traveled miles past a tolerance for ideas they despise. And these aren’t merely people in the street. Google apparently has passed the point of tolerance. So has adroll.com, a company that makes money by placing ads for clients like infowars. Then we have college professors and students from shore to shore, who insist on silencing those who dissent from their political ideology. And Facebook and Twitter are practicing censorship. To say nothing of major media outlets, who block stories that contradict their covert agendas.

There is always a THEY whose words and ideas are too dangerous to allow into the light. This assumption is shared by strange bedfellows: defenders of the National Security State and paid provocateurs throwing bricks at car windshields.

There is always a reason to shut people up.

“I’m in favor of free speech, but when (insert name) goes off on one of his crazy diatribes, he’s threatening basic human values, and he has to be stopped.”

Yes, and who appointed this “human-values defender” king?

Obama recently told an audience that news needs to be “curated” in some way, in order to limit the infection of “fake news.” Who appointed him to stand in for the 1st Amendment?

Peter Maass, The Intercept: “…the Obama administration has used the draconian 1917 law [the Espionage Act] to prosecute more leakers and whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined.”

No problem. The president takes precedence over the Constitution, doesn’t he? Ask any college student, as long as you insert Obama’s name for “president,” and not Trump’s name.

It all depends, you see. It all depends on who is speaking about free speech. And it all depends on who is being attacked. It’s relative.

If you’re a medical blogger living in mommy’s basement, and you attack Mike Adams for his medical views, you’re golden. You want to limit Mike’s 1st Amendment rights? Why not? “Mike is dangerous. Mike is a threat to real science. Therefore, who cares if Google delisted his web site?”

The Constitution was actually an exercise in political and social relativity, right? It was never intended to mean what it said. It was always a “floater,” designed to favor good and oppose evil—and those moral decisions have to be made by “the wise ones.”

Shortly after the election results in November, the CIA-connected Washington Post launched a campaign against “fake news” sites. The campaign quickly morphed into: these sites aided a Russian op to throw the election to Trump. In other words, free speech was actually aiding and abetting a crime. That’s the way it was positioned.

Smear free speech as criminal. Any which way.

Here is another excuse for censoring free speech: “It is engendering hate.” Accepting that premise, every presidential campaign in the history of the United States could have been shut down. Untold numbers of statements made by pundits about presidents in office could have been blocked.

If a person “taking offense” at something someone says becomes the standard for censoring “offending remarks,” Congress should pass a law requiring silence 24/7 from all citizens.

So: who would censor a political website if they could? Huge numbers of clueless people with an ax to grind. They would do it without a moment’s thought. They would do it without a shred of understanding. They would do it based on zero knowledge of the Bill of Rights. They would do it minus an education that reveals how rational debate is a prerequisite for the survival of a Republic. They would do it based on zero knowledge of the meaning of “Republic.”

They would do it with the reflex of cows munching on grass in a pasture.

And even worse, few people would voice objections to the act of censorship.

“I would rather eat a cupcake, watch Law&Order, play World of Warcraft, put mustard on a hot dog, hand out a trophy for ‘participation’ than object to censorship.”

Or this: “I don’t like Alex Jones and Mike Adams. Never did. So while I defend the basic right to free speech, I don’t really care if they’re hamstrung. I don’t care if they’re blocked in some way. On balance, it’s a good thing. I pick my battles, and this isn’t one of them…”

Really? What about MSNBC? Suppose the network was shut down and censored? Would such an action rate as a serious incursion on the 1st Amendment? What about censorship of the Huffington Post or Politico or CNN? Would that rate a howl of protest?

Let’s have a scale of importance. Take names like Karl Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Plato, St. Augustine, Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger…

Decide how to rank them, in terms of who is deserving of outright censorship.

Then, burn the 1st Amendment.

Burn it to ashes, scatter the ashes in a fetid swamp, and celebrate the victory of “moral values” and the protection of the citizenry over “dangerous freedom.”

I PICK MY BATTLES.

FREEDOM, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, IS A GOOD THING. BUT KNOWING WHO THE BAD PEOPLE ARE AND SHUTTING THEM UP IS PRIOR TO ALLOWING FREEDOM. AFTER ALL, WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER. OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE. MUMBLE, MUMBLE…

The 1st Amendment isn’t there so we can admire the freedom of the people who utter what we already agree with. The 1st Amendment is there so we can rise up to a higher level, where we defend the rights of the people who are uttering all the wrong things, the things we’re quite sure are wrong.

Well, except for Trump. Except for Hillary. Or Bannon. Pelosi. Ryan.

Or Alex Jones and Mike Adams.

This is the age of information. Some information. Select information. Good information. Proper information.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

I’m waiting for Google to explain why they deleted Natural News

I’m waiting for Google to explain why it deleted Natural News

by Jon Rappoport

February 24, 2017

(Update: Part-1 here)

As many of you know by now, Google deleted Natural News, owned by Mike Adams, from its listings.

When you type in “Natural News,” you don’t get “naturalnews.com,” you get “natural.news” instead — a different and tiny site also owned by Mike Adams.

Various people have speculated about Google’s reasons. All Google has to do is print an explanation. Where is it?

A few idiot science bloggers, who disagree with Mike’s views on health and medicine, think the Google deletion is hilarious. I guess they’re living in the Soviet Union of the 1950s. For them, the First Amendment, and the blood-soaked history behind its final enshrinement, is merely another joke.

Apparently, they justify their pleasure on the basis that Mike has been passing along information that could “harm people’s health.” My reply to that is this:

People can make up their minds about how they want to manage their own health. And an examination of conventional and official medicine’s effects reveals a shocking death toll—a fact these “science bloggers” prefer to ignore.

I have covered the extent of that death toll MANY times.

For example: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?” The medically caused death total in one year? 225,000 Americans. Extrapolating per decade? 2.25 MILLION deaths.

Is Google de-listing web sites and blogs that defend THIS kind of medicine?

Yes, Google is a private company, and they can censor anyone they want to. They can print all their listings upside down. They can highlight sites that claim the moon is made of steak. They can post a cute doodle celebrating the life of Stalin. They can print a manifesto asserting that fake news is their business.

—Or they can simply publish a reason for deleting all listings for Natural News.

If you own a blog or website and you stand for free speech, I strongly urge you to write and post a piece about this situation and tell Google you’re waiting for their explanation.

If Google has nothing credible to offer, then they are censors. They’re a lot of things, none of them good.

So far, that’s the way I’m leaning, because it’s been a few days since the delisting. How long does it take to come up with a statement? How long does it take to stand for the 1st Amendment?

UPDATE: Here is a statement from Mike Adams (2/24):

“This morning, I was contacted by a Google technical person who directly emailed Natural News. According to the email, a Google techie found an obscure third party advertising script running on a tiny number of articles published 3+ years ago under the blogs.naturalnews.com subdomain, where content is posted by outside bloggers. (Many websites host similar blogs, including the NY Times.)…”

“Just to be clear, this script was NOT running on the www.NaturalNews.com primary domain, it was not part of any in-house NaturalNews articles, and it was not even recent. It was from years ago.”

“This third party script, identified as invoking ‘cpxcenter.com’, has been so far identified on a grand total of 13 blog posts that were posted from 2013 – 2014 under the subdomain blogs.naturalnews.com.”

“Using this as their excuse, Google blacklisted the entire NaturalNews.com domain, including all 140,000+ pages of content that contained no such third party scripts, thereby ‘silencing’ Natural News content by invoking an obscure, dated, barely-visible technical issue.”

“This is the electronic equivalent of a rogue cop claiming, ‘Yer tail light is busted! Hee-Haw’!”

“In other words, Google scoured the entire Natural News site and all its subdomains, including blogger articles, in order to find some ‘justification’ to ban the entire website. Even worse, they did not issue any warning to Natural News on this ‘Manual Action,’ they did not limit the content ban to the subdomain in question (blogs.) and they did not even tell Natural News which URLs were being flagged by Google, because that would have made it much quicker for us to identify the issue they claimed was responsible for the delisting. (They only told us about one URL today, after days of censorship of the entire website…)”

“But since then, we’ve discovered that Google’s own Blogspot network is running the same third party code! According to Google’s own logic, Google should have blacklisted the entire Blogspot.com domain. But they haven’t. Wonder why?”

Google, what’s your response?

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.