I believe that all mainstream media outlets — all of them without exception — should start focusing around the clock, as they focused for months and months upon the Wuhan virus, on the harm and death caused by Gene Transfer vaccines.
I think that CNN should have a “Death Counter,” as they called it, in the bottom righthand corner of every broadcast, every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month, for months and months and months and months.
The reason I think this is that, according to the CDC and WHO, thousands and thousands and thousands of people are dying and being made sick by an experimental Gene Transfer platform, which didn’t exist one year ago and which was pushed through legislation, via the “Emergency Authorization Act,” before these vaccines had been fully vetted and tested for longterm effects.
CNN’s “Death Meter” captures the essence, I think, of why these experimental vaccines were pushed through before any longterm safety studies were conducted.
That same “Death Meter” symbolizes why most people did not think twice when for the first time in all human history hundreds of millions of humans — children, pregnant women, and Covid-recovered among them — were injected with a genetic material that had not been tested at all for longterm safety, because there was not time, because the Wuhan virus (so we were led to believe) was too lethal.
It is not and it was not ever.
The genetic material that make up the Gene Transfer vaccines comes from a failed biotech program, decades old, and it had never before been used as a vaccine until this last year.
Anyone — and I mean anyone — who tells you that she or he knows the longterm effects of these Gene Transfer platforms is lying.
That so many pregnant women, who would not so much as touch a drop of alcohol or even coffee while pregnant, accepted without question this genetic material, for which proper longterm safety studies had not been done, it will go down in history as one of history’s most mind-boggling events. And I do not fault the pregnant woman primarily here. I fault the utterly corrupt poisonous anti-reason political ideologies driving most of the world today and for a long time, and I fault the major mainstream media and social-media outlets who live off of and who pedal these purely poisonous and disastrous ideologies.
It is a crime of unimaginable scope that to this very moment an experimental vaccine is being actively recommended and even pushed onto pregnant women and onto children — children who don’t even need the vaccine.
“More children have died from the vaccine than from Wuhan virus,” said Dr. Richard Urso recently, an MD who has successfully treated hundreds of Covid patients.
No matter what catastrophic propaganda you’ve heard, the Wuhan virus is not very harmful to children. It’s the opposite: it’s mild for children — far less harmful to children than the regular seasonal flu. Sweden has had zero deaths in children — zero — and they sagely kept schools open and did not impose draconian lockdowns.
It was a calamitously stupid decision early on in this pandemic to close schools.
Not only do children not very often get sick from this virus — they also don’t pass it along to adults. And if you’ve never heard this either, it’s because the truth has been hidden carefully by the very people who should be reporting the truth.
“Children turn cars into car parts,” as this same just-quoted Dr. Urso recently phrased it — meaning: children dismantle the virus via the vitality of their natural and intact immune systems, thereby helping the entire population to more rapidly reach herd immunity.
The following is the CDC’s own data, as of yesterday (August 25, 2021). This is the grand total, for all children 0-17, all these months. The regular flu kills astronomically more children:
Please make no mistake: what’s happening right now across the entire globe is a nightmare every bit as serious and as heavy as the nightmare-world George Orwell depicted in 1984, and I mention 1984 because the excerpt I quote below references that book.
I am not exaggerating about this. I wish I were.
The seriousness of this and the urgency of it are indescribable.
Everybody must make a stand now.
At the very least, I implore all people — all ages, all genders, all races, all everything — to take a stand and tell others that these Gene Transfer platforms are not the normal vaccines we’ve all had and that we’ve all grown accustomed to. They don’t operate remotely like tetanus shots or mumps vaccines. Please tell people just that one thing. Tell everyone you know.
Inform people that these are a genetic material that’s never before been used as a vaccine in all human history — that you’re not being conspiratorial. This is just the fact of the matter. It’s the whole truth and nothing but, and it’s easily demonstrated. Tell everyone you know that because of the “Emergency Authorization Act,” these Gene Transfer injections were pushed through at “warp speed,” to use the government’s exact phrase, and so no longterm safety studies were conducted. There was not time.
You’re just stating facts here.
People need to know. It is urgent.
You can truthfully say that the vaccines might turn out to be okay overall, but that according to the CDC, the WHO, and the European Union, it’s been by far the deadliest rollout of any vaccine ever. Nothing else even comes close.
That, too, is a matter of fact.
Do not let the dystopic-science-fictional feel of this, the seeming implausibility of it all, fool you.
Do not let the relaxed feel-good talk on television programs and in news columns and magazine articles and in videos lull you into a sense of security or distraction.
By way of an analogy and at the risk of my sounding alarmist and even morbid, I ask you to imagine a hypothetical: imagine if all of a sudden a suitcase nuke were to go off in some major world city. Imagine the shock and horror you would feel when you suddenly turned on the television and saw and heard about this on the news.
That, I repeat, is just an analogy — but it’s this same sort of seriousness and urgency that I seek to capture here. Because it is so serious. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of people have no idea is one of the main reasons for the urgency.
When you have all major mainstream media outlets actively and with smiles and laughter promoting to pregnant women and children an experimental Gene Transfer platform, which has never before been tested on pregnant women and which may very well reverse to DNA and be transmitted to future generations, and which operates by means of a method of encapsulation in fat particles (nanoparticles) whose long-term effects are unknown and yet which, in preliminary studies have conclusively been shown to be very harmful to female and male reproductive health, you can, I hope, see why I use such an extreme and ghastly analogy.
These Gene Transfer vaccines spread throughout the entire body, despite the early promise they would not, and they hijack our cellular machinery in exactly the same way an actual virus does, and they are causing blood clots and autoimmune disorder in unknown thousands of people worldwide.
The longterm genetic consequences are unknown.
I say again: the longterm genetic consequences are unknown.
That is also a fact.
A recent paper by Dr. Anthony Kyriakopoulos, of Athens, Greece, demonstrates that the messenger RNA’s used in this Gene Transfer biotechnology are indeed incompatible with cellular activity — specifically, they change the thermodynamics of cells, and the cells are not meant to handle yet another piece of messenger RNA over and over again. Dr. Anthony Kyriakopoulos very plausibly hypothesizes that if they stay in the cells long enough and the caps become modified, it’s possible they can be reverse-transcribed.
This means that from messenger RNA we can actually have a piece of DNA put in, and that DNA then gets put into into our chromosomal DNA. We already know that this does happen with other forms of RNA, like retro-viruses. The concern among many docs and scientists is in the fact that the human body has a library of non-human DNA in our chromosomes, called the HERV library, and there is real concern that these forms of genetic treatments will indeed be gene-transferred, because they were designed to be gene-transfer products to begin with, and that we will actually get some genetic material permanently transcribed into our chromosomes.
Antigen-based vaccines, like tetanus shots and the other MMRs, do not remotely function like this. And if you must have a vaccine to feel safe against the Wuhan virus, some antigen-based vaccines are coming very soon, and so I plead with you to wait. These are the vaccines that function like a tetanus booster and involve no genetic manipulation of the human body.
It is also a fact that Moderna received 300,000 reports of side effects after vaccinations over a three-month period following the launch of its shot, according to an internal report from a company that helps Moderna manage the reports. That number is far higher than the original number of side effect reports about Moderna’s vaccine. This is not just malfeasance: it is a crime, and I hope it is prosecuted to the full extent of the law — and then some.
Below is a brief excerpt from an article published today (August 26th, 2021) in an online magazine called The Defender — a left-leaning publication the founder of which is the left-leaning Robert F Kennedy, Jr, whose politics I usually disagree with. Yet he has been an ally and a voice of reason in this Gene Transfer madness. This article was, I believe, written by him:
Psychological and linguistic manipulation are, for those in power, proven tools for building, consolidating and maintaining dominance — a reality keenly depicted in George Orwell’s never-more-relevant novel, “1984.”
As phrased by master propagandist Edward Bernays, an approximate contemporary of Orwell’s, the mind of the people “is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion.”
Recent events surrounding COVID vaccines have shown that medicine and public health — with the help of a complicit media — are particularly skilled at “pull[ing] the wires which control the public mind.”
The clever bag of linguistic tricks deployed by the medical cartel includes seeding evocative terms such as “anti-vaxxer” and “vaccine hesitancy” and “lockdowns” (which is prison terminology) into popular and scientific discourse, forging slippery new definitions of words with formerly fixed meanings (such as “pandemic,” “herd immunity” and “vaccine”), and circling failed products back around by giving them the positive spin of “boosters.”
Ominously, medicine’s and public health’s verbal assaults encourage shaming of, or violence against, those who ask questions, while upholding the disingenuous pretense that vaccine mandates are compatible with freedom.
In this hostile upside-down universe, even the vaccine-injured are tarnished as “anti-vaxxers” or liars rather than acknowledged as ex-vaxxers who took risks that turned out to be life-changing. [The boldface emphasis is mine.]
MUCH LIKE OTHER ‘STRESSORS’
One of the more insulting recent examples of linguistic weaponization involves a dubious psychiatric cover term, “functional neurological disorder” (FND), which is suddenly being trumpeted as an explanation for the tsunami of adverse events — especially severe neurological reactions — being reported all over the world in the aftermath of COVID vaccination. [Note from Ray: there ARE a tsunami of events being reported — or, rather, reported and buried.]
Psychiatrists conveniently define FND — which they also refer to as a “psychogenic” (originating in the mind) or “conversion” disorder — as “real” nervous system symptoms that “cause significant distress or problems functioning” but are “incompatible with” or “can’t be explained by” recognized neurological diseases or other medical conditions.
Lest members of the public derive a “simplistic impression of potential links between the [COVID] vaccine and major neurological symptoms,” neurologists pushing the FND story have hastened to reassure people that the “close development of functional motor symptoms after the vaccine does not implicate the vaccine as the cause of those symptoms.”
One of these individuals is National Institutes of Health-funded neurologist Alberto Espay, who implausibly adds that COVID vaccination (which entails injection with high-risk substances and technologies) is just “a stressor or precipitant, much like any other stressor — such as a motor vehicle accident or sleep deprivation.”
Officials and the media are audaciously trotting out the FND narrative on both sides of the pond, as evidenced by a recent Daily Mail headline that read, “Videos of people ‘struggling to walk’ after getting their COVID vaccine are NOT result of jab itself but a condition triggered by stress or trauma.”
Helping with the spin, a member of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization straight-facedly attributed this “stress” to coercion, stating: “If people begin to feel they are being kind of forced against their will to do something, then in a sense that’s quite a damaging thing to do because it gives people the impression vaccination is something being imposed on them.”
Hammering home the point that “there is nothing to see here,” Kings College London physician Matthew Butler solemnly (and without evidence) agrees that FND — though “serious and debilitating” — “does not implicate any vaccine constituents and should not hamper ongoing vaccination efforts.”
Butler is the lead author of a May 2020 paper proposing FND patients’ “abnormal body-focussed attention” be treated with psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin — never mind that psychedelics themselves, admit Butler and co-authors, “sometimes produce abnormal physical and motor effects,” including seizures.
I ask you to reread that: they’re openly admitting that there are neurological issues in many people after the shot, but it’s not the genetic injection causing it: it’s something “triggered by stress or trauma.”
Reader, that should make your blood run cold.
There is a reason I’ve stopped virtually everything else in my life to focus exclusively on promulgating the message about this subject: because it is an emergency more urgent and horrifying than any we’ve faced in our lifetimes. I’m not kidding, and I’m not overstating.
As a glimpse into what I mean, I invite you to witness how nightmarishly surreal this headline is:
That is a real headline from today.
Other countries, including America, are talking about “camps for the unvaxxed.”
Do not ever allow yourself or your mind to grow accustomed to such blatant and outrageous violations of human freedom as you see in that headline and all around you.
Do not take it lightly and do not ever play it off as something not to be taken seriously. Because the moment the majority accept this sort of language and the ideas that these words embody — which is to say, the moment people get used to it — we are all doomed.
Stand up against it now.
This is happening in the modern world as I write this.
This would have been unimaginable two years ago.
That’s how far it’s come and how fast it’s happened — and happened, never forget, in response to a coronavirus which kills at most 0.5% of a very specific demographic of the population, and which low percentage would be reduced to virtually nothing with the application of any number of different early treatment protocols: proven protocols that have been around for over a year and which virtually all politicians, bureaucrats, and media outlets have deliberately, criminally suppressed. You will see proof of this assertion below.
People right now are gripped in a worldwide madness unlike anything the world has ever seen before. It’s as Manchurian-Candidate-like as anything anyone could have ever conjured in the wildest imagination.
This spell must at all costs be broken.
Partisan politics are a distraction. Ignore them — for this crisis at the very least, ignore them.
A great many people are being harmed and killed by these Gene Transfer platforms, and it’s being treated as though it were no big deal.
It is a fact that this virus early on is easy to treat, and very successfully so.
This virus is nowhere near the plague it’s been made out to be.
Listen not to the politicians or the bureaucrats or any of the media about this.
Instead listen to the multitude of doctors who have been successfully treating the Wuhan virus from the very beginning — good doctors who heroically and intelligently followed the oath they undertook: do not harm and create wellness.
These excellent doctors from the very beginning observed and understood that the virus wasn’t killing people. It’s the thrombotic-inflammatory response of the human body to the virus that causes the sickness and death.
These good doctors therefore understood right away to treat that, the body’s inflammatory-thrombotic response. And they’ve been incredibly successful.
This one thing alone obliterates all the draconian measures — including the explicit suppression of these very successful treatment protocols — that have been enacted. It also indicts all those who have enacted these draconian measures, and it gives the world a glimpse into what’s really going on and why.
These doctors have been brilliantly, beautifully, heroically successful — and you’ve heard nothing about it only because you were meant to be scared out of your wits, so that you would be more likely to accept any amount of state coercion and control.
You were targeted to believe that a viral apocalypse was coming — that is, unless politicians and bureaucrats seized control and led the world forth. These people have done inestimable damage and they have killed or ruined the lives of millions and millions.
Do you want proof of that?
Dr. Peter McCullough, who’s written and had published 45 peer-reviewed studies on Covid, and who was one of the earliest doctors to get on the phone with Italian doctors in order to understand from their insights precisely what mechanisms were killing people, successfully treated his own father, early on, and his father was in his eighties.
You can hear him discuss it here, if you get to it before this video is removed. Dr. Peter McCullough himself, along with his family, has also gotten sick with Covid. He used his own treatment protocols successfully on himself and his family.
I wrote a few days ago about how effective Monoclonal Antibody treatment is in the first several days of catching the virus, and I was of course ridiculed by people, who of course had nothing substantive to say but only the standard talking points they’ve memorized from their favorite media platforms.
It is with that in mind that I want you to look at the following — from day before yesterday, where even the totally corrupt media-slave Anthony Fauci admitted it:
I reiterate: if you get this virus and you know early on, find a clinic that offers Monoclonal Antibody treatment. They’re not hard to find. They’re not expensive. They’re very effective and have been around for a long time.
Dr. Peter McCullough has also been using and recommending this for over a year, and he’s been completely ignored. He’s a cardiologist, president of the American Cardiology and Renal Society. He’s had over 40 peer-reviewed publications on Covid alone. He’s being attacked in textbook ad-hominem fashion, and he’s being slandered because he refuses to line up in lockstep and forsake the Hippocratic oath — because he uncompromisingly rejects the politicization of science.
Watch him recommend Monoclonal Antibody treatment in this video, an interview that’s a few months old.
Please listen to him.
Fast-forward to the 9:00 minute mark and watch through the 15:00 minute mark. Please watch.
And please tell everyone you know that there are many highly effective early-use treatment options, far more effective than any of the experimental Gene Transfer platforms and far safer:
The truth is that any real doctor with any common-sense knows that it is relatively easy to treat this illness in its early stages. It’s only when it becomes progressively worse that it’s more difficult to treat.
There are double-standards all over the place. The biggest one is that we have very effective early-use FDA approved — they’re approved — so we have approved early-use Monoclonal Antibody infusions.
Reader, this virus is not that big of a deal.
If my saying that strikes you as impossibly hard to believe it’s only because of all that’s happened in the virus’s name. It was all a political lie.
This virus is really, truly not that big of a deal.
In its early phases, there are so many successful ways to treat this coronavirus that the propagandist — i.e. all the major mainstream media outlets — are losing ground and can’t keep up: they don’t have the time or the brain-power to traduce and ridicule all these good treatment options because there are too many. That’s why they’re growing more panicked by the minute. They’ve doubled-down on this crazed reaction so many times over the past year-and-a-half that it’s all or nothing for them now.
That’s why they’ve lost.
The truth also is that the world has been monumentally duped, and it is time that the world rises up and takes a stand against these humanitarian crimes, which have caused so much senseless death and destruction — beginning with the fact that this virus when caught early is easy and safe to effectively treat. Yet not ending there:
The absolute shredding of all human rights, destroying millions and millions of private businesses across the world and private savings that people had worked all their lives for, the millions of livelihoods, the suicides and outrageous presumption that our lives are not our own but belong to state, the staggering and endless litany of lies and manipulations and so much more — these are acts of violence and warfare committed by political elites and leveled onto individual citizens. It is absolutely wrong and it must be stopped.
Do not accept this as acceptable or normal or anything remotely like that.
This is and has from the beginning been an outright act of violence.
Addendum on Censorship:
Two regular readers of this website, who also happen to be my good friends (still), have asked me if in light of some of my recent videos being pulled from YouTube and Vimeo and my being suspended for 7 days from YouTube (as well as two of my long comments being deleted by Medium), if because of this I’ve changed my stance on censorship.
I have not.
Just the opposite: my views on censorship are made stronger because of this.
First of all, neither YouTube nor Vimeo nor Medium censored me — not in the real and legal meaning of the word “censorship.” (There is a looser and more general usage, but I’m referring to the legal-politico meaning.)
I include this here because it highlights a very crucial point about human freedom:
No private action is an act of censorship.
Only governments can censor.
No private individual or platform, no magazine or press, no agency or business may rightfully suppress another publication by force. (Competition or competitive advantage does not equal force.) Only governments have the power to enforce silence and to suppress with impunity.
When governments do this, it is an act of censorship.
Private companies can ban or reject whomever they decide. It is their right.
I do not have a right to a YouTube channel.
I do not have a right to a Vimeo channel or a Bitchute channel, just as I, along with everybody else, does not have a right to a New Yorker column.
Nobody has a right to a Facebook page or Instagram or a Twitter profile or a Tiktok application or whatever.
These are voluntary arrangements consensually entered into.
It is an arrangement we are all free not to enter into, as we are also always free to leave.
We are also free to write letters to these platforms — letters of complaint, for instance — just as we are free to talk to the manager of a restaurant if, for instance, we’ve been treated rudely or have gotten bad food at this establishment.
This is the same principle at work in the totally legitimate sign you still sometimes see in restaurants and bars:
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
You don’t even have to have a reason to refuse service, if you don’t want.
As it is legitimate for the business-owner to refuse service, so for the same reason is it legitimate for YouTube to disallow my videos.
Here’s the principle I most wish to underscore:
I’m not calling for, nor would I ever call for, the enactment of any laws which would make it illegal for YouTube or Vimeo to reject my videos.
They should always remain free to do that. It is their platform.
I am free to leave and I am free to boycott them.
It should properly remain a private matter. Always.
Government has no place or jurisdiction here.
If I want, I am free to write articles and post videos calling their policies into question, of course, and I can publish my articles and videos on my own platform, should I choose to build one, or on a different platform that does not object to my publishing those things there. But it must always remain a private matter.
The immediate, almost knee-jerk-like reaction among many people to suddenly call for laws and legislation when something happens that they don’t like is a serious problem — not least because laws almost never help and almost always exacerbate the issue.
Over the years I’ve often said, when discussing the true nature of freedom (in a political context), that one can vehemently object to any given behavior or viewpoint yet without falling into the trap and popular fallacy that “there should be a law against it.”
Personal objections, even if it’s a majority of people voicing them, should never be the reason to enact new laws and legislation. It’s not the solution.
Cigarettes kill people: therefore lets make a law illegalizing the manufacturing and selling of all cigarettes.
Alcohol destroys families and is unhealthy: therefore let’s make a law illegalizing the manufacturing and selling of all alcohol.
Marijuana is a gateway drug: therefore let’s pass a law making marijuana illegal.
These are all disastrously false.
Just because you or I or anyone else disagrees or doesn’t like something does not mean there should be a law against it — which laws don’t ever solve the problem or help anyway. On the contrary, the create a gigantic underworld and crime syndicate.
This same exact principle is true with all other substances and activities, no matter how hardcore, no matter how much any one person may personally disapprove of said activities and substances.
“Any state interference into private affairs, where there is no reference to violence done to individual rights, should be absolutely condemned” — The Limits of State Action, Wilhelm von Humboldt.
The primary point to be made here — and deeply connected with the Gene Transfer vaccines and lockdowns and all the rest — is that politically the word “freedom” has only one legitimate meaning, and that meaning is this: freedom from state compulsion and governmental force.
Freedom does not mean freedom from the necessity to work, or freedom from an employer, or freedom from paying the person who rents lodgings to you.
It does not mean freedom from the facts of nature which do not assure human survival nor grant human-beings automatic prosperity.
To be free in a political sense means simply this: to be left alone — free from the coercive power of the state.
This is a subtle and yet profound point about the true nature of human freedom, and it’s a point that you rarely if ever hear mentioned. The reason that it is so crucial to name and explicitly codify this principle is that it isolates the locus of freedom: namely, only the state has the power to use force with impunity.
If a private company or a private citizen were to disapprove of something you or I did that harmed no one — drinking a beer out on our patio, for example — and that person or company were to then apprehend you or me and imprison us in his home, this would be a clear and blatantly illegal act. Our rights have been obviously breached, and we have full recourse to the law — for assault, kidnapping, and whatever else.
If, however, the government were to do this, we would have no such recourse. The state in this sense has the power to use force with impunity. That’s what is meant by saying that the state has a monopoly on the legal use of force. That is why all governments are by their very nature inherently dangerous.
That is the distinguishing characteristic of government — all government. It’s what government by definition is: the body politic that possesses a legally recognized monopoly on the use of force.
Which is precisely what we’re seeing today, all around the world, with people being arrested and assaulted by the state, which is the government, for what are now considered crimes because of the slew of new laws that have been hammered through legislation at breakneck speed, via “Emergency Authorization,” for a virus that can easily and successfully be treated early, and which was never that lethal in the first place.
For this, the state is now able to deploy acts of blatant force with impunity. Please take special note of that word: impunity.
Governments all over the world are now legally allowed to administer horrible acts of injustice and they’re able to do so and will suffer no repercussions for their acts all in the name of the Wuhan virus.
That is why freedom in a political context refers specifically to the coercive power of the state, and not, for instance, the landlord who requires rent. The latter thing, just like entering into a job with an employer, is a contractual arrangement voluntarily entered into. You can quit a job and leave, and you can move out of where you live.
You cannot, however, quit jail or imprisonment, nor leave when you want.
Freedom from state coercion and governmental force is the fundamental meaning of the word “freedom” in a political context.
In the same way that not serving or selling me another drink isn’t an act of force, so the act of not publishing my videos on a privately-owned platform (no matter how big that platform is and no matter how much money that private platform has behind them) isn’t an act of force or censorship.
Nor is it an act of force if a private platform changes its terms. We are always free to not use that platform. In a free society, we can always start up our own platform.
Only governments can censor.
Only governments can use force with impunity.
(Fraud and extortion are in the philosophy-of-law properly classified as “indirect uses of force.”)
This principle when elaborated goes all the way down to the very nature of liberty and the actual meaning of the word “rights” (from Ancient Roman law, which came from Ancient Greek philosophies of law: the word jus, as in justice, is the provenance of the word right).
It’s also what is meant by the term “negative rights” or “negative liberties,” which means that your rights, my rights, everyone’s rights impose no obligations or duties upon any other individual except those of a negative kind — i.e. we must refrain or abstain from infringing upon the equal rights in others.
All true rights are negative rights — all true liberties are negative liberties — negative in the sense just described.
There are no such things as “positive rights.”
That term most certainly does exist, but in actuality — i.e. in how it must necessarily play out — positive rights negate actual rights: because they require that some entity or institution (i.e. the government) take by force from one person or one demographic and redistribute it to another.
“Positive rights” is an anti-term that in practice obliterates the true meaning of the original concept.
Negative rights are also still sometimes accurately described by an old term, which you almost never hear any more but which is a good word, a perfect word for capturing the essence of negative rights: that word is compossible.
All true rights and liberties are compossible.
Compossibility is an infallible way to distinguish real rights from invented rights.
Compossible rights are negative rights.
Private platforms — and I’m including everything like newspapers and magazine and book-publishers (i.e. Amazon and Barnes & Noble) — can legally and legitimately reject whoever and whatever they choose. This is not an act of censorship in the legal meaning of that term.
Twitter can legally and legitimately ban Donald Trump, just as they can ban Barack Obama and anyone else if they choose.
If, however, the government did have power to override their decisions, the government could then with impunity force them into publishing whatever the government deemed acceptable. Or, corollarily, reject whomever they so deem.
That is important to note too.
So that if there were actual laws (like anti-trust laws, incidentally, which do this very thing) stating what videos YouTube could and could not legally allow, the government could then force (which is to say, legally compel) YouTube to publish all my videos. Or the government could force YouTube to delete all my videos, including the videos of mine that YouTube does not currently disapprove of. That is true censorship.
That is state-action over speech.
And it is exactly what exists in present-day China, for instance, and Cuba and of course North Korea and many, many other places, almost all of which are in one way or another socialist.
I repeat: only governments can censor.
It is good that these private platforms have control over their own platforms, as it is also good that we are each free to write them letters of complaint and boycott them and start up new platforms of our own et cetera. This is free and voluntary association and exchange, and it is healthy.
There is no place and no need here for government intrusion — not in any of this — and the people who call for more laws concerning anything of which they happen to personally disapprove are badly in error.
Let competition and consumer choice rule, and you will have in every market and every industry the overwhelming abundance that you see in American supermarkets — and for the same exact reasons — abundance which brought Boris Yeltsin to his knees and caused him to convert after a lifetime of socialist adherence and that poisonous ideology.
One final thing to say about the subject of censorship: when and to the extent that a private platform or publication does conspire or collude with government — often instigated by the primary owners of the platform itself — to legally silence and suppress; or when the government assumes any type of control over a private platform (even if it’s only partial control), this, then, does become censorship proper.
This is a type of cronyism, which is another mutated version of socialism, and I do think that some of these big platforms today may very well have skirted or crossed this boundary line.
Please never forget: this virus was never close to the scourge it was made out to be: