FROM MERCOLA Was COVID a Bioweapon That Targets Certain Races?

[carol ann parisi]

Was COVID a Bioweapon That Targets Certain Races?

JULY 25 2023

Rabbi Shmuley & Kennedy On NYPOST Smear (rumble.com)

Rabbi Shmuley & Kennedy On NYPOST Smear (rumble.com)

Rabbi Shmuley & Kennedy On NYPOST Smear (rumble.com)

Rabbi Shmuley & Kennedy On NYPOST Smear (rumble.com)

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• According to mainstream media, Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently made claims about COVID-19 being an ethnically targeted bioweapon. That is false
• Kennedy was discussing the threat posed by bioweapons development, and the need to regulate this kind of research and “resuscitate” the 1972 international bioweapons charter that forbids most of it
• Kennedy cited a 2020 scientific paper, which found that ethnic Chinese, Finns, and Ashkenazi Jews were the least susceptible to COVID-19, while people of African descent and Caucasians were the most susceptible, due to ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism variations
• Because we now have synthetic biology and a wide variety of genetic engineering techniques, there’s a whole new retinue of bioweapons, and among the most heinous are bioweapons that target specific ethnicities
• While evidence from official sources are scant, high-level individuals insist that race-specific bioweapons development is already underway, in one country or another, and/or that ethnic-specific bioweapons may already exist

According to mainstream media, Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently made claims about COVID-19 being an ethnically targeted bioweapon. Yahoo! News,¹ for example, reported that “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. baselessly claimed COVID-19 may have been ‘ethnically targeted’ ... He said Caucasians and black people were most susceptible, and Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people were most immune.”

The New York Post claimed “RKF Jr. Says COVID May Have Been ‘Ethnically Targeted’ to Spare Jews.”²

According to Yahoo! News, Kennedy “did not cite any specific sources,” but this whole story turns out to be wrong. Kennedy was in fact citing a very specific scientific paper, and his comments about that paper were then taken out of context.

‘Wild Claims’ Taken Out of Context

Kennedy’s comments, which have been taken out of context by mainstream media to paint him as an anti-Semite, were made during a July 13, 2023, after-hours campaign dinner at an Upper East Side restaurant.^3,4 In a July 17, 2023, Instagram video,⁵ Kennedy tried to set straight “the inaccurate distortion” of his comments.

As explained by Kennedy, he was discussing the threat posed by bioweapons development, which is being done by the U.S., China, Russia and many other countries, and the urgent need to regulate this kind of research and “resuscitate” the 1972 international bioweapons charter (the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons,^6,7 which took effect in March 1975) that forbids much of this research.

Because we now have synthetic biology and a wide variety of genetic engineering techniques, “there’s a whole new retinue and generation of bioweapons,” Kennedy said in his Instagram reply, “and among the worst of those are bioweapons that target ethnicities.”

Research Has Identified Genetic Predispositions to COVID

During the dinner in question, Kennedy cited a July 2020 study⁸ in BMC Medicine, which reported that, based on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis, certain races, as well as people with certain diseases, are more susceptible to COVID-19. As noted in that paper:⁹

“We found unique genetic susceptibility across different populations in ACE2 and TMPRSS2. Specifically, ACE2 polymorphisms were found to be associated with cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions by altering the angiotensinogen-ACE2 interactions, such as p.Arg514Gly in the African/African-American population.

Unique but prevalent polymorphisms ... in TMPRSS2, offer potential explanations for differential genetic susceptibility to COVID-19 as well as for risk factors, including those with cancer and the high-risk group of male patients.”

In his Instagram rebuttal, Kennedy explained that, according to this study, ethnic Chinese, Finns, and Ashkenazi Jews were the least susceptible to COVID-19, while people of African descent and Caucasians were the most susceptible.

“This is not a controversial study,” Kennedy said. “Nobody has suggested that these were deliberately engineered changes. And I certainly don’t believe that they were deliberately engineered.

But what they are is kind of a proof of concept, that you CAN develop bioweapons that will attack certain ethnicities, and this should be terrifying to all of us ... and [needs to be] an object of discussion.”

Genetic susceptibilities to COVID-19 were also reviewed in a March 2021 paper¹⁰ in the Annals of Laboratory Medicine. As noted by Kennedy in his Instagram rebuttal, throughout history, powerful individuals have sought to eliminate certain races or ethnicities, and current-day bioweapons give them the ability to do that very efficiently.

For this reason, gain-of-function research and bioweapons development must be guided by robust regulations and oversight. THAT was the take-home point he was making during that dinner.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

‘Disgusting Fabrication’

In a July 16, 2023, Twitter post, Kennedy wrote:¹¹

“The insinuation by @nypost and others that, as a result of my quoting a peer-reviewed paper on bio-weapons, I am somehow antisemitic, is a disgusting fabrication ...

My father and my uncles, John F. Kennedy and Senator Edward Kennedy, devoted enormous political energies during their careers to supporting Israel and fighting antisemitism. I intend to spend my political career making those family causes my priority.

I will fight relentlessly alongside my Jewish brothers and sisters and friends against Jew-hatred and the demonization of Israel. I have just recorded an interview with @RabbiShmuley, whom the same New York Post just this month called, ‘the most famous Rabbi in America.’

I have called upon the Biden Administration not to consummate a second Iran deal that would give that genocidal government a legitimized nuclear program. In the same interview, I called upon the Democratic Party to return to the strong, unconditional support of Israel that was the hallmark of the party under the leadership of my uncle and my father.

Today I had a great conversation with Rabbi Shmuley on Judaism and anti-Semitism. He had this to say: ‘Two things bothered me about the reports I had read about what you had said at that dinner on the upper east side. I said number one, again, this perception that you’re anti-Semitic. I know you’re not.

And in fact, I know precisely the opposite is true. I know that in your heart you feel a great closeness to the Jewish people, to the Jewish community, and to Israel. And the second thing that bothered me is, that you’re being portrayed as you said before, a crank, as a loony toon … but you’re brilliant. You know your facts.’”

A Harbinger of Smears to Come

Is it possible that Kennedy’s pro-Israeli stance might in fact be one of the reasons why the Deep State-shackled media try so hard to smear him as an anti-Semite? Maybe, maybe not. What we do know is that Kennedy poses a serious threat to more than a few corrupt institutions, and they’re willing to use just about any smear tactic available, even if it makes no sense. As noted by Roger Simon in The Epoch Times:¹²

“This isn’t, in the end, really about anti-Semitism, real or imagined. It was just low-hanging fruit ... a harbinger of many dastardly smears of the candidate to come.

If there’s one thing the military-industrial complex (endless wars from Iraq to Ukraine) and the health care-industrial complex (Big Pharma, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, et al.) do not want, it’s a Robert F. Kennedy Jr. presidency.

Big Tech probably isn’t very keen on it, either. It would cost them all incalculable amounts of money, much of it courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer and a complaisant government.

Most of all, the current leadership of the Democratic Party — bent on exploiting every so-called progressive policy, no matter how looney, for maximum gain and power — don’t want anyone bringing their party back to sanity, under the leadership of Mr. Kennedy or anyone else.”

Race-Specific Bioweapons Are a Reality

Getting back to Kennedy’s main point, there’s ample evidence showing we have the ability to create race-specific or ethnicity-specific bioweapons, and history tells us that race-specific targeting in war is nothing new. This is precisely why we need to rein in this mad science.

As noted in a September 2000 report by The Project for the New American Century, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,”¹³ “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

In other words, if a particular race or ethnic group becomes politically troublesome, an ethnic-based bioweapon could suddenly become a “useful political tool” to restore order or power.

Kennedy is not saying that COVID-19 was an intentionally created race-specific bioweapon. He merely pointed out research showing that different races did have varying levels of susceptibility to it, and that race-specific or gene-specific bioweapons are, in fact, in the works around the world — and must be stopped.

Fast-forward to August 2019, and Cambridge University’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk warned humanity is unprepared for the emergence of race-specific bioweapons. As reported by The Guardian:¹⁴

“Scientists warn that humans should be worried about being wiped out by a killer pathogen that is specifically designed to kill people of only a particular race, based on their genetic material/ Deoxy ribonucleic Acid (DNA).

A new report from Cambridge University’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk says that world governments have failed when it comes to preparing against threats like futuristic bioweapons powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and genetic manipulation. Such weapons would have to power to target specific DNA, and kill certain races of people leaving other swaths of the population unharmed ...

The authors warn: ‘The technology is becoming increasingly sophisticated at ever cheaper prices, democratizing the ability to harm more quickly and lethally. In a particularly bad case, a bioweapon could be built to target a specific ethnic group based on its genomic profile.’”

According to The Guardian, an estimated 16 to 20 countries have known biological warfare programs, but well over 100 have the capacity to make bioweapons. Making matters more difficult, most labs are “dual use,” meaning the work they do have both defensive and offensive uses, and there’s no hard distinction between the two.

Genetic Data Collection Poses Serious Threat

Two years later, in July 2021, Dr. P.S. Venkatesh Rao, a consultant endocrine, breast and laparoscopic surgeon, published an article¹⁵ in The Sunday Guardian, warning that global genetic data collection, artificial intelligence and genetic engineering techniques currently available allow for the creation of race-specific bioweapons. He wrote, in part:¹⁶

“Global collection of genetic data and genetic manipulation of humans, animals, plants, destructive insects and deadly microbes is of dual use from bio-welfare to bio-warfare ...

It has become ridiculously simple and cheap to misuse data and gene altering and synthesizing tools, as simple as the use of an ordinary computer and a 3D printer. Big data, artificial intelligence and gene synthesis are being misused to create racially specific bioweapons ...

The International HapMap Project of 2002 to 2010 developed a human genome map and provided a massive genotype data from Caucasian, African and Asian population samples. Many differences in susceptibility to some diseases, and response to certain drugs between different ethnic groups were reported in a 2015 study in BMC Genomics.

Multiple reports in scientific journals in 2016 such as in Oncotarget, in Cell and from Pasteur Institute in Paris, found differences in antibody responses and cellular immunity between those of African ancestry and Caucasians.

Those of African ancestry had a stronger inflammatory response and immune overreaction like cytokine storm and autoimmune diseases. Genetic differences affecting the immune system led to racial differences in the response to infections, drugs and vaccines.

In a pandemic, racial differences exist in mortality rates and vaccine efficacy and complications. Genetic data from blood samples about racial differences can be used for racially targeted biowarfare.”

China Accuses Pentagon of Making Race-Specific Bioweapons

Fast-forward yet again, to May 2023, and Newsweek reported¹⁷ that a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry had accused the U.S. Pentagon of creating “race-specific bioweapons.” The spokesperson, Wang Wenbin, told reporters:^18,19,20

“The U.S. widely collects and uses genomic information. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon has formulated R&D plans for hitting opponents with genetically engineered weapons. Those involved disclosed that the genomic data of Asian Chinese, European Aryans and Middle Eastern Arabs are all being collected by the U.S. military.

According to the website of Russia-based RT, the U.S. Air Education and Training Command (AETC) once issued a tender seeking to acquire samples of ribonucleic acid (RNA) and synovial fluid from Russians. It’s pretty clear who exactly is using genomic information for secret purposes.”

Wenbin’s accusation came one day after U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused China of collecting the genomic data of ethnic minorities such as the Uyghurs in Xinjiang for the purposes of control and surveillance.

A senior Pentagon official denied Wenbin’s allegation and Newsweek was reportedly unable to locate The Wall Street Journal article cited by Wenbin. I’ve had no luck locating it either. Whatever the truth may be, there’s no doubt that race-specific bioweapons CAN be created though. We certainly have the technologies required.

Do Ethnic-Specific Bioweapons Already Exist?

While evidence from official sources is scant — Blinken’s and Wenbin’s mutual accusations notwithstanding — Kennedy and many others insist that race-specific bioweapons are in active development, and some may even exist already. In a June 20, 2023, appearance on Newsmax, Kennedy told On the Record host Greta Van Susteren:^21,22

“We know that the Chinese are developing ethnic bioweapons. Bioweapons that are designed to attack people of certain racial types. And we’re doing the same thing. We’ve been collecting Chinese DNA. We’ve been collecting Russian DNA specifically for that. [This] arms race is a catastrophe.”

Video Link

Kennedy made the same claim in a June 5, 2023, live Twitter discussion with Elon Musk, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, venture capitalist David Sacks, investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger and securities attorney Omeed Malik (video above).

Ethic-specific bioweapons have already been developed, Kennedy said, and exist in labs around the world. The Epoch Times also insists that claims of China developing race-specific bioweapons are true (video below).

In an April 3, 2023, Wall Street Journal opinion piece,²³ Paul Dabbar, undersecretary of energy for science during the Trump administration, also underscored this threat, writing, in part:²⁴

“Around 2017, the Energy Department’s national laboratories started having significant concerns about biosecurity with regard to China. A Chinese general who was head of the National Defense University in Beijing publicly declared an interest in using gene sequencing and editing to develop pathogenic bioweapons that would target specific ethnic groups ...

Taking note, the Commerce Department ordered export restrictions of potentially dangerous biotechnology to China. But the NIH and NIAID refused to believe that there was any risk involved in collaborating with Chinese labs. Their indiscriminate commitment to open science blinds them to threats, even when a country like China is open about its intentions.”

Next-Gen Warfare Will Target Genes

The Chinese general in question is Zhang Shibo, who in 2017 published “New Highland of War,”²⁵ a war manual of sorts that discussed “new domains of warfare,” one being biology.

In the book, Shibo concluded that “Modern biotechnology development is gradually showing strong signs characteristic of an offensive capability,” including the possibility of “specific ethnic genetic attacks.”²⁶

The same terms, “specific ethnic genetic attacks” can be found in the People’s Liberation Army’s textbook, “Science of Military Strategy,” also published in 2017. It too looks at biology as a military domain and mentions that biological warfare may eventually include race-specific, gene-based weapons.²⁷

In June 2021, biosecurity specialist Michael Knutzen, a former Army intelligence officer and a Presidential Management Fellow at the Department of Homeland Security, wrote:²⁸

“The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed critical weaknesses in the human domain of warfare at just the moment technology has emerged that gives bad actors new power to exploit those weaknesses.

Developments in synthetic biology will create next-generation bioweapons, ‘human-domain fires’ that will fundamentally change the strategic environment ... Recent developments in synthetic biology ... pose a profound threat ... Of those dangers, next-generation bioweapons are the most serious ...

One threat that was once the stuff of science fiction may soon become real. Some researchers (including Lieutenant General Zhang Shibo, former president of the PLA National Defense University) foresee the possibility of ‘specific ethnic genetic attacks’ on whole racial or ethnic groups ...

And China may already have hacked from medical records or purchased the genetic information of millions of ordinary Americans through genealogical companies such as 23andme.

Bill Evanina, former director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, warned against Beijing Genomics Institute–linked COVID-19 tests, noting: ‘Foreign powers can collect, store and exploit biometric information from COVID tests.’

Potential SBW effects include not only incapacitation and death, but also boutique outcomes. Colonel Guo emphasizes that ‘learning, memorizing ... and even the ‘bellicose character’ can be injured precisely without a threat to life’ ...

The ability to remotely hold a person’s biology hostage — through degenerative, frustrating, or simply embarrassing symptoms — but promising a personal cure (or enhancement) could create enormous strategic leverage.”

We Must Protect the World From Targeted Bioweapons

In closing, Filippa Lentzos, associate professor in science and international security at King’s College London, in December 2020 published an essay in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in which she discussed the need to “protect the world from ultra-targeted biological weapons”:²⁹

“As genomic technologies develop and converge with AI, machine learning, automation, affective computing, and robotics, an ever more refined record of our biometrics, emotions, and behaviors will be captured and analyzed.

Governments and, increasingly, private companies will be able to sort, categorize, trade, and use biological data far more precisely than ever before, creating unprecedented possibilities for social and biological control ...

These game-changing developments will ... radically transform the dual-use nature of biological research, medicine, and health care and create the possibility of novel biological weapons that target particular groups of people and even individuals.

In the coming decade, managing the fast and broad technological advances now under way will require new governance structures that draw on individuals and groups with cross-sectoral expertise — from business and academia to politics and defense — to identify emerging security risks and make recommendations for dealing with them.”

This is essentially what Kennedy is calling for as well, but he’s not content with recommendations alone. We need strict safeguards to prevent one nation or another from obliterating entire ethnic groups from the face of the earth.

We also need strict regulations to protect people’s genetic data, seeing how such data can be used for global genocide. One loophole in the Biological Weapons Convention is its “general purpose criterion,” which allows most biological research as long as it’s for defensive or protective purposes.

As a result, the most hazardous biowarfare research in the world is being conducted in the name of defense or vaccine research. And, as noted by Lentzos, “Distinguishing permitted biodefense projects from those that are prohibited is difficult; one cannot just assess the facilities, equipment, material, and activities involved, but must also examine and interpret the purpose, or intent, of those activities.”

Converging Risks

The fact that we need to start examining and interpreting the purposes of biological research in earnest is quite clear. The escape of SARS-CoV-2 from a biolab in Wuhan, China, highlights this need. We’re fortunate that it wasn’t something with an exceptionally high mortality rate.

In her article, Lentzos reviews warnings about genetic weapons issued by a wide variety of actors over the last three decades:³⁰

“The possibility of ... ‘genetic weapons’ was first discussed in the biological arms control community in the 1990s, as the Human Genome Project to map the full complement of human genes got underway.

The UK government said ‘it cannot be ruled out that information from such genetic research could be considered for the design of weapons targeted against specific ethnic or racial groups.’

The British Medical Association cautioned that ‘the differential susceptibility of different populations to various diseases’ had been considered in the past, and that ‘whilst we should hope that genetic weapons are never developed, it would be a great mistake to assume that they never can be, and therefore that we can safely afford to ignore them as a future possibility.’

A report³¹ from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) spoke of the potential for ‘future development of weapons of mass extermination which could be used for genocide.’

Developments in genomic technologies and other emerging technologies, especially machine and deep learning, have spurred renewed concerns. ‘Access to millions of human genomes — often with directly associated clinical data — means that bioinformaticists can begin to map infection susceptibilities in specific populations,’ a recent report³² from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research warned.

A United Nations University report,³³ meanwhile, asserts that ‘deep learning may lead to the identification of ‘precision maladies,’ which are the genetic functions that code for vulnerabilities and interconnections between the immune system and microbiome.

Using this form of bio-intelligence, malicious actors could engineer pathogens that are tailored to target mechanisms critical in the immune system or the microbiome of specific subpopulations.’

A 2018 National Academies of Sciences report³⁴ suggests ‘[a]ctors may consider designing a bioweapon to target particular subpopulations based on their genes or prior exposure to vaccines, or even seek to suppress the immune system of victims to ‘prime’ a population for a subsequent attack.

These capabilities, which were feared decades ago but never reached any plausible capability, may be made increasingly feasible by the widespread availability of health and genomic data.’”

A Blanket Ban Is the Safest Solution

Lentzos reviews many of the challenges involved in effective oversight of potential bioweapons research. I, for one, believe we should opt for the simplest solution, which would be to issue a blanket ban on all gain-of-function research that involves equipping pathogens with novel capacities.

As well as a blanket ban on all research that could be used to develop a race-specific bioweapon, or a bioweapon intended to take out people with a particular genetic makeup, regardless of how that target group is defined.

We simply do not need this kind of research to live long, fruitful, healthy lives. It’s unnecessary, and taxpayers should not be paying for science that can result in their own demise.

Kennedy seems to be of like mind. As he stated in his June 5, 2023, live Twitter discussion, he wants to see bioweapons development shut down worldwide. During a June 27, 2023, health policy roundtable discussion he also promised to redirect federal grants away from infectious disease research to study chronic disease instead, were he to gain the White House.

This would ensure that tax dollars are not siphoned into biowarfare efforts veiled as vaccine research and the like. Scientists are flocking into biowarfare research because that’s where the grants are, so we need to turn off that tap and encourage scientists to engage in study that leads us toward better health outcomes.

Again, to pull us full circle to where we started, Kennedy is not saying that COVID-19 was an intentionally created race-specific bioweapon. He merely pointed out research showing that different races did have varying levels of susceptibility to it, and that race-specific or gene-specific bioweapons are, in fact, in the works around the world — and must be stopped.

[carol ann parisi]

COVID Censorship Proved To Be Deadly

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

 

• July 25, 2023

Was COVID a Bioweapon That Targets Certain Races?

How Curcumin Targets Cancer

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• The federal government was sued for colluding with social media companies to censor Americans
• U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction stating, “the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history”
• The governments censorship efforts depict “an almost dystopian scenario,” the ruling states, during which “the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’”
• Topics that were clearly censored by the government, which “used its power to silence the opposition,” include opposition to COVID-19 vaccines, masks and lockdowns, the lab-leak theory of COVID-19 and more
• When organizations talk about tackling “misinformation” and “disinformation,” it’s a code phrase for censorship that’s part of a globalist agenda to control free speech and alter the perception of truth and reality

We’ve just witnessed the biggest attack on freedom of speech in U.S. history. And it appears the writing is on the wall for “the most important free speech lawsuit of this generation,” in which the federal government was sued for working with social media companies to censor Americans.¹

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction, siding with the plaintiffs that the U.S. government colluded with social media companies to censor free speech.

“If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” Doughty wrote. “In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the federal government, and particularly the defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”²

Government Tried to Get Case Dismissed, but Failed

The lawsuit — Missouri et al v. Biden et al — was filed May 2022 by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, and plaintiffs Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff — co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which scientifically critiqued the effects of prolonged lockdowns in response to COVID-19.³

The lawsuit alleges the Biden administration "colluded with social media giants Meta, Twitter and YouTube to censor free speech in the name of combating so-called ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation.’" In so doing, it suppressed and censored the truth “on a scale never before seen” on topics relating to COVID-19 shots, COVID-19’s potential laboratory origins and Hunter Biden’s laptop.⁴

Judge Doughty denied a motion from the government to dismiss the case,⁵ which called on Dr. Anthony Fauci and other officials, including CISA director Jen Easterly and former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, to testify under oath.⁶ The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which represents Bhattacharya and Kulldorff in the case, stated:⁷

“Social media platforms, acting at the federal government’s behest, repeatedly censored NCLA’s clients for articulating views on those platforms in opposition to government-approved views on Covid-19 restrictions. This insidious censorship was the direct result of the federal government’s ongoing campaign to silence those who voice perspectives that deviate from those of the Biden Administration.

Government officials’ public threats to punish social media companies that did not do their bidding demonstrate this linkage, as do emails from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to social media companies that only recently were made public.”

In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing, press secretary Jen Psaki actually admitted the Biden administration is violating the First Amendment by alerting social media companies to posts and accounts it believes is peddling “misinformation” about COVID injections.⁸ This includes banning the 12 individuals, including yours truly, who were falsely deemed the “disinformation dozen” during the pandemic, from all available social medial platforms.⁹

US Government Assumed Role as ‘Orwellian Ministry of Truth’

Doughty didn’t mince words when it came to the severity of the government’s censorship efforts, writing:¹⁰

“The evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”

Topics that were clearly censored by the government, which “used its power to silence the opposition,” included:¹¹

Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines	Opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns
Opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19	Opposition to the validity of the 2020 election
Opposition to President Biden’s policies	Statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true
Opposition to policies of the government officials in power

Doughty added:¹²

“All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. This court finds that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants.”

On Twitter, journalist Glenn Greenwald called the judge’s ruling vital to not only acknowledge the “systemic program of the US Govt to pressure/coerce Big Tech to censor for it,” but also to “apply established 1st Am principles that the state is barred from pressuring private actors to censor for it.” What’s more, he added, the ruling even banned the practice from continuing.¹³

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Judge Blocks US Government From Policing Social Media

As part of the preliminary injunction, Doughty limited the U.S. government from meeting with social media companies to discuss content online.¹⁴ Already, the U.S. State Department canceled its regular meetings with Facebook, during which it planned to discuss “safeguards” for the 2024 election — “pending further guidance.”¹⁵

In a commentary for WSJ Opinion, Bret Swanson, technology and global economy analyst, states COVID censorship proved to be deadly in that “government and social-media companies colluded to stifle dissenters who turned out to be right.”¹⁶ This led to effective COVID-19 treatments being silenced early on, leading to an unknown number of deaths that might have been prevented if censorship hadn’t prevailed.

“Legions of doctors stayed quiet after witnessing the demonization of their peers who challenged the COVID orthodoxy. A little censorship leads people to watch what they say. Millions of patients and citizens were deprived of important insights as a result,” Swanson wrote.¹⁷ He tweeted:¹⁸

“For three years, pandemic public relations mocked nature, generating fear, illness, inflation and excess death beyond what the virus caused. Digital censorship supercharged the effort to hide reality, but reality is getting its day in court.”

While much of the damage has already been done, the ruling restrains the government and other named defendants from engaging with social media via 10 key measures, including:¹⁹

Meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms

Specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech

Urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social-media companies to change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing or reducing content containing protected free speech

Emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech

Collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working with the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of content posted with social-media companies containing protected free speech

Threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to remove, delete, suppress or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech

Taking any action such as urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress or reduce posted content protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Following up with social-media companies to determine whether the social-media companies removed, deleted, suppressed, or reduced previous social-media postings containing protected free speech

Requesting content reports from social-media companies detailing actions taken to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce content containing protected free speech

Notifying social-media companies to Be on The Lookout (“BOLO”) for postings containing protected free speech

A Globalist Agenda

When organizations talk about tackling “misinformation” and “disinformation,” it’s a code phrase for censorship. It’s also part of a globalist agenda to control free speech, alter the perception of truth and reality, and spread its carefully orchestrated propaganda. July 4, 2023, the United Nations tweeted the following statement from Melissa Fleming, its communications chief, with the above graphic:²⁰

"Our information ecosystem is now so polluted with lies & hate that voices for positive change are seriously struggling to make themselves heard."

It’s a classic example of globalist propaganda, but the policing of “wrongthink” on social media also has deep roots stemming from the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA),²¹ which are mentioned in the lawsuit.

In addition, in June 2023, the House Judiciary Committee released a report detailing how CISA “colluded with Big Tech and ‘disinformation’ partners to censor Americans.”²² “The 36-page report raises three familiar issues,” the Brownstone Institute reported.

“First, government actors worked with third parties to overturn the First Amendment; second, censors prioritized political narratives over truthfulness; and third, an unaccountable bureaucracy hijacked American society.”²³

The United Nations’ propaganda above has a familiar ring to it because it’s the same rhetoric being spouted the world over. Much of the new world order’s plans are based on crisis management, and the idea that a great crisis will occur that will lead to the great transition, where globalists will swoop in to save the day, transforming society into the promised paradise, which is actually a totalitarian society.

But in order for their plans to succeed, they must control the narrative. Technology and digitization have allowed this to occur at an unprecedented level compared to in the past, largely due to censorship online.

What’s the endgame? In 2019, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum entered into a strategic alliance, which called for the U.N. to “use public-private partnerships as the model for nearly all policies that it implements, most specifically the implementation of the 17 sustainable development goals, sometimes referred to as Agenda 2030.”²⁴

Soon after the COVID-19 pandemic began, global leaders and WEF began calling for The Great Reset.²⁵ Embedded in this future world order will be widespread digitization, data collection and digital IDs intended to track and trace the global population. The United Nation’s Summit of the Future is scheduled for 2024, honing in on “the triple planetary crisis,” the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war to instill fear and propel their agenda forward.

Described as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to enhance cooperation on critical challenges and address gaps in global governance, reaffirm existing commitments including to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the United Nations Charter, and move towards a reinvigorated multilateral system that is better positioned to positively impact people’s lives,”²⁶ — this is but one more checkmark toward reaching the new world order.

And a big part of the plan will involve readying for the next crisis — and obeying their orders on how to react when it occurs. Again, censorship is necessary for this to work, lest people start to question what’s really going on. They’ll put emergency platforms into place under the promise that they’ll dissolve once the crisis is solved. But if the crisis never ends, neither will their new authoritarian regime.²⁷

Will truth and free speech ultimately prevail? Doughty’s ruling is a large step in the right direction, bringing hope that, at least in the U.S., freedom has not yet been lost.