{"id":74739,"date":"2021-07-21T08:37:57","date_gmt":"2021-07-21T12:37:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=74739"},"modified":"2021-07-21T08:38:32","modified_gmt":"2021-07-21T12:38:32","slug":"74739","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=74739","title":{"rendered":"Meet the Foreign Haters Who Censor American Opinions (Part I)"},"content":{"rendered":"

CCDH \u2013 The Centre For Cancel Culture
\nAnd Digital Hypocrisy<\/strong> \u2013 Part 1<\/h1>\n

Iain Davis
\nOff-Guardian.org<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Center For Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) are a\u00a0UK based organisation<\/a>\u00a0who have misspelled\u00a0\u201ccentre\u201d<\/em> in their name. Perhaps they have opted for the U.S spelling in the hope of selling their peculiar brand of morally bankrupt censorship to the American propaganda market.The Anti-Vaxx Industry, is a propaganda leaflet with two main objectives. The first is to create a false dichotomy in the public imagination and the second is to build a public-private censorship grid in anticipation of forthcoming government legislation. This is proposed to censor legitimate scientific opinion and evidence based debate on a wide range of issues the government and its corporate partners would rather silence. Including any questioning of vaccines.<\/p>\n

They insist that anyone who has\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0doubts about\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0vaccine rejects all vaccines outright. This isn\u2019t true but the CCDH are censors and propagandists,\u00a0not rationalists<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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

The CCDH espouse the social reform and political philosophy of\u00a0progressivism<\/a>. This advocates alleged progress through the advancement of science, technology and economic development. In the UK this is commonly associated with the political movement found on the right wing of the Labour Party and is the\u00a0dominant ideology<\/a>\u00a0of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).<\/p>\n

While still maintaining a putative commitment to representative democracy, it has much in common with the\u00a0concept of Technocracy<\/a>\u00a0and, with the addition of a commitment to maintaining the global dominance of the\u00a0transatlantic alliance<\/a>, it is the basis of\u00a0Blairism<\/a>. It\u2019s acolytes, such as the CCDH, consider themselves enlightened progressives. However, this sense of elitism produces an intolerance of all opposing views.<\/p>\n

There is a strong tendency among progressives to label anything they disagree with as\u00a0right wing<\/em>\u00a0and quite frequently\u00a0far right\u00a0<\/em>or\u00a0antisemitic<\/em>. They call themselves radicals and whatever they deem not to be\u00a0progressive<\/em>\u00a0they label as\u00a0hate<\/em>. Their language is merely a device used to promote division and create hatred among their followers for anyone or anything the doesn\u2019t toe their\u00a0progressive<\/em>\u00a0doctrine, including their own fellow party members.<\/p>\n

Though they see themselves as\u00a0left wing<\/em>, there is very little within the progressive movement that could be described as being on the political left. Progressivism has far more in common with the modern centre and centre left of the Conservative Party and there is considerable agreement and ideological overlap between the two.<\/p>\n

While falsely claiming a position on the left of the political spectrum, their\u00a0neoliberalism<\/a>\u00a0is far from the traditional\u00a0socialist values<\/a>\u00a0of the social democrats who form the rank and file of the Labour Party membership.<\/p>\n

In the modern cancel culture we passively allow to flourish, with it\u2019s deplatforming, demonetisation, censorship and refusal to engage in either critical thought or debate, the word\u00a0\u201cFascist\u201d<\/em>\u00a0is overused and frequently misused. Its linguistic power, as a stark historical warning to us all, is being lost in the mire of\u00a0progressive<\/em>\u00a0banality. \u00a0So it is worth considering what we really mean\u00a0when we say \u201cfascist\u201d<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

In 1935 in\u00a0The Doctrine of Fascism<\/em>\u00a0the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini wrote:<\/p>\n

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And:<\/p>\n

The Fascist State \u2026\u2026makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And in\u00a0Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions<\/em>\u00a0he said:<\/p>\n

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A Fascist State is a totalitarian public-private partnership where all policy, speech and expression, economic activity and production is controlled via a beneficial arrangement between government and a network of non governmental organisations such as Unions, think tanks, private corporations and\u00a0\u201cofficial\u201d<\/em>\u00a0charities.<\/p>\n

The individual is removed from all decision making because elections are either banned or meaningless, and those who make policy decisions aren\u2019t elected anyway. They form a technocratic elite. There is no diversity of opinion and all information is controlled by the Fascist State.<\/p>\n

Any dissent or questioning of the doctrines of the State is considered to be\u00a0disinformation<\/em>\u00a0and is censored. The Fascist State attempts to control opinion through propaganda, censorship and punishment. With the assistance of censor organisations and propagandists, like the CCDH, such a State is currently under construction in the UK.<\/p>\n

Anyone who promotes this form of corporate state, who advocates the corporate censorship of information and decrees that the only source of truth is the public-private State and its representatives; those who propose that the free exchange of ideas, freedom of speech and expression be limited by this corporate State; people who call for those who question the\u00a0\u201cofficial\u201d<\/em>\u00a0truth to be punished, ostracised or identified as\u00a0\u201cother\u201d<\/em>\u00a0can accurately be described as Fascists.<\/p>\n

In modern terms, with the degree of control made possible by the rapid evolution of communication technology, we could refer to them as\u00a0Technofascists<\/em>. Thus understood, the\u00a0Technofascist<\/em>\u00a0seeks to seize control of the information highway (the Internet) in order to advance their own scientific, technological, economic and historical truths while excluding all others. They will not tolerate any challenge to their\u00a0progressive<\/em>\u00a0ideology.<\/p>\n

CCDH PROPAGANDA<\/h4>\n

CCDH vaccine propaganda is focused upon polarising opinion. This fake division is created through CCDH disinformation. Like many propagandists before them, they deal in inaccurate, empty generalisations. They hope to convince their consumers that anyone who ever questions a vaccine must be a\u00a0nutter<\/em>. The same dross was recently\u00a0promulgated the UK Conservative Prime Minister<\/a>.<\/p>\n

By misleading people that there is no scientific basis for some vaccine scepticism, nor any legitimate concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, the CCDH are creating fake social divisions in the hope of building real ones. In order to achieve this aim, the CCDH assert that anyone who asks any questions about vaccines is driven by\u00a0hate<\/em>\u00a0and is therefore an\u00a0extremist<\/em>\u00a0who threatens public health, ultimately posing a threat to\u00a0national security<\/em>.<\/p>\n

They are creating the ludicrous, fake bogeyman of the public health terrorist. The alleged\u00a0anti-vaxxer<\/em>\u00a0as subhuman, a vile, hateful extremist. They are\u00a0\u201cother.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Johnson thinks anyone who questions vaccines is a nutter, unlike him<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The CCDH propaganda narrative on vaccines is part of a wider slew of nonsense which underpins government efforts to\u00a0censor the internet<\/a>\u00a0and freedom of speech. In the UK we were due to get our first clear sight of the legislative censorship grid with the arrival of the\u00a0Online Harms Bill<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, it appears there is a\u00a0delay in the legislation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0Part 2<\/a>\u00a0we will discuss the CCHD\u2019s links to government, think tanks and parliamentarians, but it is notable that it is the\u00a0Labour front benches<\/a>\u00a0who are among the most eager to censor freedom of speech. Although petty political point scoring is also a likely factor contributing to their outcry.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Online Harms Reduction Regulator (Report) Bill<\/a>\u00a0sets forth the envisaged role of the regulator who will be empowered to police the Internet, if and when the Online Harms Act comes into force.\u00a0OFCOM<\/a>\u00a0have been selected as the regulator of\u00a0online service operators\u00a0<\/em>which the proposed legislation defines as any Internet service or platform enabling human beings to communicate or exchange ideas. This includes web hosts, because they host websites which have comment sections and forums.<\/p>\n

The scope of the proposed censorship grid is limitless. OFCOM will have a the power to regulate,\u00a0\u201cany other harms that OFCOM deem appropriate.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

In the meantime, the CCDH are part of the network of so called\u00a0fact checkers<\/a>\u00a0and censors who are using their incredible and seemingly disproportionate influence, suddenly garnered from nowhere, to police opinion on the social media platforms. We will explore how this occurred in more detail in\u00a0Part 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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

Inaccurate information, regardless of intent, can be harmful \u2013 for example the spread of inaccurate anti-vaccination messaging online poses a risk to public health. The government is particularly worried about disinformation\u2026\u2026Disinformation threatens these values and principles, and can threaten public safety, undermine national security, fracture community cohesion and reduce trust\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Like the government, the CCDH are careful not to mention any of the\u00a0scientific or historical evidence<\/a>\u00a0which questions vaccine efficacy and safety. Instead, they label all who do cite this evidence as\u00a0radical\u00a0extremists<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The opening statement in the CCDH\u2019s vaccine propaganda claims:<\/p>\n

Vaccines are one of the most consequential, safe, efficient and effective medical discoveries in history. Few other inventions have saved so many lives.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While it is true that some vaccines have been beneficial in the eradication of disease, there is little evidence that vaccines alone have achieved this. The vast majority of the reduction in mortality rates occurred as a result of broader public health improvements, prior to the\u00a0widespread use of vaccines<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While the CCDH blithely claim all vaccines are\u00a0\u201csafe,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0they are the only medical discovery where the manufacturers\u00a0have blanket indemnification<\/a>\u00a0against any loss from injury claims. It is not an act of\u00a0\u201chate\u201d<\/em>\u00a0to ask why this needs to be the case if they are so safe.<\/p>\n

The CCDH state that anyone who asks such questions has\u00a0fringe\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0extremist\u00a0<\/em>views. They claim consideration of vaccine safety and efficacy should not be\u00a0permitted<\/em>\u00a0and sharing any information or evidence which questions vaccines should be banned. For example, they deny people\u2019s right to know any of the information we are about to discuss. They claim it is all hate driven\u00a0disinformation\u00a0<\/em>which presents a threat to national security.<\/p>\n

When trialling a vaccine, inoculated animal test subjects can be deliberately exposed to the targeted virus in a\u00a0challenge trial<\/em>. The results from challenge trials have blighted all previous attempts to\u00a0develop a SARS-CoV vaccine<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While the test subjects developed the hoped for antibodies and proteins, when they were challenged with the virus their immune systems were found to be hypersensitive. This\u00a0induced life threatening illness<\/a>\u00a0and caused a range of\u00a0serious health conditions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The interferon gamma (IFN-y) induced protein IP10, encoded in humans by the\u00a0CXCL10 gene<\/a>, is thought\u00a0to be a possible cause of the cytokine storm<\/a>\u00a0which leads to Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Persistent high levels of IP10 send the immune system into overdrive. Much of the immunopathological damage sustained by a small minority of SARS infected patients is thought to arise as a consequence of interferon gamma (IFN-y)\u00a0related cytokine storms<\/a>. Italian\u00a0researchers noted<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Accumulating studies indicated that the cytokine storm caused by SARS is mainly related to IL-1\u03b2,\u00a0IL-6, IL12A,\u00a0IFN-\u03b3, IP10 and MCP1, and the cytokine storm caused by MERS is mainly related to IFN\u03b3, TNF\u03b1, IL15 and IL17A.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is therefore somewhat concerning that during the challenge trials for the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222 SARS-CoV-2) vaccine, currently being developed in by Atrazeneca and Oxford University, the\u00a0following was noted<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Cytokines in serum were analysed after challenge to monitor immune responses. We observed an upregulation\u00a0[increased cellular response] in IFN-\u03b3 at 1 DPI in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccinated animals, but not in control animals.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While an upregulation in IFN-y potentially has\u00a0both beneficial and harmful<\/a>\u00a0inflammatory effects, we don\u2019t know what the long term IP10 (CXCL10) levels for inoculated test subjects were because it wasn\u2019t investigated in the vaccine trials. However, an upregulation in IFN-y suggests the possibility of the overexpression of the potentially lethal\u00a0cytokine storm inducing<\/a>\u00a0CXCL10.<\/p>\n

The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 study only checked IFN-y upregulation for one day post inoculation (1 DPI). Then again, this really isn\u2019t of any concern for the multinational corporations, like Astrazeneca, who make vaccines. As usual, they have been given\u00a0immunity from prosecution<\/a>. They have no liability for vaccine injury, and therefore have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.<\/p>\n

Having found these results in all of the 6 macaque monkeys they inoculated, the Astrazeneca Oxford team felt this was nothing to worry about and went ahead with\u00a0large scale human trials<\/a>. The results of these trials raised further reason for concern.<\/p>\n

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

The\u00a0possible side effects<\/a>\u00a0of the MenACWY vaccine include headaches, nausea, fever, elevated heart rate, loss of consciousness, paralysis and seizures. Using the MenACWY vaccine as your control, to measure relative safety, will probably provide a favourable safety profile providing the recipient of your new vaccine doesn\u2019t immediately drop dead the moment you inoculate them.<\/p>\n

The people who were selected for the Astrazeneca \/ Oxford Phase 1 and initial Phase 2 trial were all in good health and aged between 18 \u2013 55 years. The median age of the participants was 35 yrs. The average age for those requiring COVID 19 hospital treatment is\u00a0at least 60 years<\/a>.<\/p>\n

COVID 19 risks increase appreciably with age. In the UK, more than 89% of those who have died\u00a0\u201cwith\u201d<\/em>\u00a0COVID 19\u00a0were over 65 years old<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The UK government have announced their\u00a0intention to initially vaccinate<\/a>\u00a0those in the\u00a0at risk<\/em>\u00a0group and front line key workers. These are primarily older people with serious comorbidity.<\/p>\n

With the exception of younger key workers, the initial phases of the trials didn\u2019t test the vaccine with the demographic who will be the first to receive it. While the trials have now been expanded to include some older people and children, early results indicate the need for considerable caution.<\/p>\n

Of the vaccinated group 70% reported fatigue, 68% headaches, 60% had muscle pain and more than 50% ran a fever. In addition, 9% reported temperatures of at least 38\u00b0C and an alarming 1% reported a high fever of more than 39\u00b0C.<\/p>\n

While researchers stated that these adverse reaction were\u00a0\u201cwell tolerated,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0by the relatively young and healthy test subjects, the same cannot simply be assumed for older\u00a0at risk<\/em>\u00a0groups.<\/p>\n

These adverse reactions present a far greater health risk to the most vulnerable in society. The demographic which the vaccine is supposed to protect.<\/p>\n

These early trial outcomes have been met with\u00a0universal, uncritical praise<\/a>\u00a0by the UK MSM because the Astrazeneca \/ Oxford vaccine did stimulate an immune response. However, evidence is now emerging that up to 60% of the population may\u00a0already have general immunity<\/a>. If this is the case, the relative benefit to vulnerable people, in light of the adverse reactions, would appear questionable.<\/p>\n

According to the CCDH none of these concerns have any basis in either fact or science. By urging the precautionary principle, I am one among millions labelled as a\u00a0radical extremists\u00a0<\/em>by the CCDH.<\/em><\/p>\n

CCDH FACT LITE CLAPTRAP<\/h4>\n

The CCDH state that SARS-CoV-2 is:<\/p>\n

\u2026a pandemic that will only be overcome by the most ambitious vaccination programme in human history.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is not a fact. It is merely the CCDH\u2019s opinion. One that ignores the scientific evidence which shows that people who have already been exposed to other coronavirus strains, which is pretty much the entire population, have developed some level of\u00a0T-Cell immunity<\/a>\u00a0to SARS-CoV-2.<\/p>\n

However, unlike the CCDH, I think they have every right to express their opinion. Just as I and millions of others have every right to express ours.<\/p>\n

In a free and open democratic society, that values freedom of speech and expression, the dialectic can be used to exchange logical arguments to arrive at new knowledge and understanding. This is not possible in\u00a0Technofascist<\/em>\u00a0State. Opinions are censored to protect the interests of the public-private partnership.<\/p>\n

Like most good propaganda there are elements of truth within the CCDH\u2019s report. They quite rightly highlight that some leading so called\u00a0anti-vaxxers<\/em>\u00a0are trying to make money from the growing number of people who question vaccines. While paywall protected content and internet marketing on social media are perfectly legitimate business models, we should be more sceptical of claims made by those who have a vested commercial interest. Like pharmaceutical corporations for example.<\/p>\n

Central to the CCDH\u2019s vaccine propaganda is their questionable estimate of the profits made by some who doubt vaccines. They claim this is evidence that all who have concerns about vaccines are quacks and charlatans.<\/p>\n

The CCDH allege that the worst offenders leverage economic influence with social media giants to\u00a0\u201cradicalise\u201d<\/em>\u00a0gullible fools into becoming hate filled \u201cextremists.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>This premise is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons.<\/p>\n

Firstly, if we agree with the CCDH that possible financial incentives render all associated opinion on a subject null and void, we can reject the majority of pro vaccine arguments outright. The pharmaceutical industry\u2019s U.S. social media ad-spend is projected to\u00a0exceed $4 Bn in 2020<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In the U.S. alone, they invest\u00a0more than $30 Bn annually<\/a>\u00a0on MSM advertising and devote more resources to\u00a0political lobbying<\/a>\u00a0than any other industry.<\/p>\n

However, while the CCDH insist that the paltry sums generated by the alleged\u00a0anti-vaxxer fraudsters\u00a0<\/em>exposes their racket, it makes no mention at all of the staggering economic power of vaccine manufacturers. The profits to be made from the estimated\u00a0$46.9 Bn global vaccine market<\/a>, conservatively projected to eclipse \u00a3107 Bn by 2027, are completely irrelevant. Or so the CCDH would have you believe.<\/p>\n

While good propaganda contains elements of truth, it is mainly disinformation. The CCDH make the following claim:<\/p>\n

The format of groups makes their members ripe for the process of radicalisation\u2026These secret spaces allow for deeper radicalisation.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is unadulterated pseudo-scientific claptrap. According to the\u00a0Cambridge English dictionary<\/a>\u00a0\u201cradicalisation\u201d<\/em>\u00a0is defined as follows:<\/p>\n

The action or process of making someone become more radical in\u00a0their\u00a0political\u00a0or\u00a0religious\u00a0beliefs\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Questioning the efficacy and safety of vaccines is a public health issue, neither a political nor a religious\u00a0belief.<\/em>\u00a0The CCDH use of the word\u00a0\u201cradicalisation\u201d<\/em>\u00a0is nothing other than a cynical attempt to associate people who have some concerns about pharmaceuticals with extremism and ultimately terrorism.<\/p>\n

This is deliberately deceptive language from the CCDH. Even if we accept their preposterous notion that asking questions about a drug can ever be\u00a0\u201cextremist\u201d,\u00a0<\/em>there is absolutely no evidence at all that individuals can be\u00a0radicalised<\/em>\u00a0simply by talking to people online.<\/p>\n

The most complete scientific review of the research literature into supposed online\u00a0radicalisation<\/em>\u00a0was carried out by a\u00a0team at Deakin University<\/a>. They found no evidence that using Facebook, Twitter or Instagram turned people into extremists.<\/p>\n

The former U.N. Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson\u00a0issued a report<\/a>\u00a0to the U.N. in which he said:<\/p>\n

There is no authoritative statistical data on the pathways towards individual radicalisation.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

CCDH TAKE HYPOCRISY TO A NEW LEVEL<\/h4>\n

In the space of a few months the CCDH have been instrumental in censoring a number of leading websites, writers and broadcasters they don\u2019t agree with. The\u00a0technofascist book burning<\/a>\u00a0presents a far greater threat to our\u00a0\u201cway of life\u201d<\/em>\u00a0than any of the information they have been instrumental in censoring.<\/p>\n

Cited as\u00a0\u201cexperts\u201d<\/em>\u00a0by the mainstream media and policy makers, their CEO Imran Ahmed has recently been appointed to the Steering Committee of the UK government\u2019s\u00a0Commission on Countering Extremism Task Force<\/a>\u00a0(CCETF).<\/p>\n

The assumed role, backed by the public-private corporate State, of the CCETF, and the CCDH, is that they will gather the evidence of\u00a0\u201chateful\u201d<\/em>\u00a0opinion. Their subjective judgement will then be used to form policy and censor information.<\/p>\n

The UK government\u2019s Commission on Countering Extremism (CCE) 2019 Document called\u00a0Challenging Hateful Extremism<\/a>\u00a0defined, what they call, hateful extremism as follows:<\/p>\n