{"id":100082,"date":"2022-11-11T20:17:22","date_gmt":"2022-11-11T20:17:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/?p=100082"},"modified":"2022-11-12T21:56:50","modified_gmt":"2022-11-12T21:56:50","slug":"deafening-silences-propaganda-through-censorship-smearing-and-coercion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/deafening-silences-propaganda-through-censorship-smearing-and-coercion\/","title":{"rendered":"Deafening Silences: propaganda through censorship, smearing and coercion"},"content":{"rendered":"

Since the start of the covid event, authorities around the world have sought to implement quite extraordinary policies including the so-called \u201clocking down<\/em>\u201d of entire populations, compulsory masking and coercion through, for example, the mandating of multiple \u2018vaccine\u2019 injections.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Many of these policies fly in the face of long-established and well-evidenced public health approaches to dealing with respiratory viruses whilst the scientific cogency of these measures \u2013 including lockdowns, community masking and \u201cvaccine<\/em>\u201d injections \u2013 is coming under increased scrutiny. At the same time, the catastrophic consequences, the so-called \u201ccollateral damage<\/em>\u201d (a military euphemism for wartime civilian casualties), of these extreme policies for populations around the world is becoming well-established. Randomised controlled trials of the injections to date have not shown net overall benefit, while accumulating evidence from passive reporting suggests they may be a cause of significant levels of harm. A central part of selling these extreme, and ultimately highly destructive, policies has involved the use of propaganda.<\/p>\n

One of the problems with researching and writing about propaganda is that many people believe it to be alien to democratic states. However, as Edward Bernays, considered by many to be a key figure in the development of 20th century propaganda techniques, explained and promoted, \u201cthe conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

At least to an extent, this belief in propaganda rests upon an assumption or belief that people are ultimately selfish, egotistical, power-hungry and hedonistic beings who require guidance and incentive; it therefore follows that propaganda is required by powerful actors in order to provide a degree of structure, order and purpose to a given society. In contrast, if one assumes that humans are ultimately good and well-inclined towards each other and to the natural world, and that they are capable of great actions if conditions permit, propaganda emerging from self-interested and powerful actors equates to a parasite within the human conscience that seeks to lead humans away from their better instincts.<\/p>\n

To this, one might add the propensity of those with power to define themselves as the arbiters of truth and morality: \u201cThe moral attitudes of dominant and privileged groups are characterised by universal self-deception and hypocrisy. The unconscious and conscious identification of their special interests with general interests and universal values [\u2026]. [\u2026] the intelligence of privileged groups is usually applied to the task of inventing specious proofs for the theory that universal values spring from, and that general interests are served by, the special privileges which they hold<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whatever one\u2019s position on the justifiability of propaganda, and although we usually call these techniques by different names today, employing euphemisms such as \u201cpublic relations<\/em>\u201d or \u201cstrategic communication<\/em>\u201d, it is a fact that techniques of manipulation are part and parcel of contemporary liberal democracies.<\/p>\n

Promoting the narrative<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the case of the covid-19 event, propaganda has been deployed across democracies on an unprecedented scale. In order to gain compliance with the unorthodox and intrusive measures adopted during the Covid-19 event many forms of \u201cnon-consensual persuasion<\/em>\u201d have been employed, ranging from manipulated messaging designed to increase \u201cfear levels<\/em>\u201d through to coercion.<\/p>\n

Indeed, very early on it came to light that behavioural scientists were providing advice to the UK government\u2019s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). UK Column<\/em> reported that this group, named the \u201cScientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviour (SPI-B)<\/em>\u201d, was (re)convened on 13 February 2020. One document produced by this group identified \u201coptions for increasing adherence to social distancing measures<\/em>\u201d which include persuasion, incentivization and coercion. In the section on \u201cpersuasion<\/em>\u201d it states that the \u201cperceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging<\/em>\u201d. The document also referred to using \u201cmedia to increase sense of personal threat<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Many of these \u201cbehavioural science<\/em>\u201d approaches to manipulation used in the UK context have been documented in Laura Dodsworth\u2019s influential work \u201cState of Fear<\/em>\u201d whilst Dr. Gary Sidley has written about the remarkable reluctance of anyone in authority to accept responsibility for the deliberate manipulation of the public. Dr. Colin Alexander has, for some time, been tracking the propaganda output across the UK public sphere.<\/p>\n

More widely, and as described by Iain Davis, these approaches have been paralleled at the global level. In February 2020, according to Davis, the World Health Organization (WHO) had established the Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health (TAG): \u201cThe group is chaired by Prof. Cass Sunstein and its members include behavioural change experts from the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Professor Susan Michie, from the UK, is also a TAG participant<\/em>\u201d. Since then, Susan Michie has taken over as chair.<\/p>\n

Creating deafening silences<\/strong><\/p>\n

One aspect of the Covid-19 event propaganda has been the aggressive promotion of official narratives; but just as important has been the suppression and censorship of those questioning authorities. Indeed, there is a case to be made that the most important part of any propaganda campaign is the drive to ensure that certain voices, claims and arguments either never see the light of day or otherwise remain contained within \u201cfringe<\/em>\u201d or \u201calternative<\/em>\u201d circles.<\/p>\n

Part of this process of suppressing arguments and opinion involves superficially well-meaning attempts to manage what has been increasingly labelled as \u201cmisinformation<\/em>\u201d and \u201cdisinformation<\/em>\u201d. Elizabeth Woodworth documents the emergence of the so-called \u201cTrusted News Initiative<\/em>\u201d (TNI) prior to the 2020 covid-19 event and which involved a coalition of mainstream\/legacy media establishing a network that would serve to combat \u201cmisinformation<\/em>\u201d and \u201cbias<\/em>\u201d. She quotes the then BBC<\/em> Director-General Tony Hall: \u201cLast month I convened, behind closed doors, a Trusted News Summit at the BBC, which brought together global tech platforms and publishers. The goal was to arrive at a practical set of actions we can take together, right now, to tackle the rise of misinformation and bias \u2026 I\u2019m determined that we use that [BBC] unique reach and trusted voice to lead the way<\/em> \u2013 to create a global alliance for integrity in news. We\u2019re ready to do even more to help promote freedom and democracy worldwide<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

By 2020, according to Woodworth<\/em>, the TNI had incorporated \u201cTwitter, Microsoft, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters, and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism<\/em>\u201d and, predictably, adopted the role of tackling \u201charmful coronavirus disinformation<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

In the UK at least, there has also been military involvement with the 77th Brigade operating as part of the covid-19 communication strategy. 77th Brigade activities include information warfare and \u201csupporting counter-adversarial information activity<\/em>\u201d which includes \u201ccreating and disseminating digital and wider media content in support of designated tasks<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Tobias Ellwood, who is both a Member of Parliament and Chair of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, is, remarkably, a reservist with 77th Brigade. In an answer to a written question in parliament it was confirmed that \u201cmembers of the Army\u2019s 77th Brigade<\/em>\u201d were \u201ccurrently supporting the UK government\u2019s Rapid Response Unit in the Cabinet Office and are working to counter dis-information about covid-19<\/em>\u201d. The Rapid Response Unit itself was established in 2018 in order to, according to its head Fiona Bartosch, counter \u201cmisinformation<\/em>\u201d and \u201cdisinformation<\/em>\u201d, and \u201creclaim a fact-based public debate<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

The WHO has also followed a similar tack cautioning the public about \u201cmisinformation<\/em>\u201d and \u201cdisinformation<\/em>\u201d. In a release titled \u201cLet\u2019s flatten the infodemic curve<\/em>\u201d, they advise people to refer to \u201cfact-checkers<\/em>\u201d and legacy media: \u201cWhen in doubt, consult trusted fact-checking organizations, such as the International Fact-Checking Network and global news outlets focused on debunking misinformation, including the Associated Press and Reuters<\/em>\u201d. The WHO describes in detail its involvement with social media and Big Tech: \u201cWHO has been working closely with more than 50 digital companies and social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok, Twitch, Snapchat, Pinterest, Google, Viber, WhatsApp and YouTube, to ensure that science-based health messages from the organization or other official sources appear first when people search for information related to covid-19. WHO has also partnered with the Government of the United Kingdom on a digital campaign to raise awareness of misinformation around covid-19 and encourage<\/em> persons to report false or misleading content online. In addition, WHO is creating tools to amplify public health messages <\/em>\u2013 including its WHO Health Alert chatbot, available on WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and Viber<\/em> \u2013 to provide the latest news and information on how<\/em> persons can protect themselves and others from covid-19<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

An institutionalised culture of censorship and suppression of \u201cWrong Think\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

These developments, along with others to be documented in due course via work at PANDA (www.pandata.org<\/em>), would appear to have had major consequences in terms of suppression of debate. A preliminary examination of events over the last 2.5 years indicates this suppression has operated in at least three different ways:<\/p>\n

– direct censorship through removal of content and deplatforming,<\/p>\n

– sponsoring of hostile coverage designed to smear and intimidate anyone raising critical questions regarding the covid-19 narrative, and<\/p>\n

– coercive approaches involving threats to livelihood and employment.<\/p>\n

The article will deal with each in turn.<\/p>\n

Censorship and deplatforming<\/strong><\/p>\n

Formal approaches to censorship via state-backed action were seen early on in the UK context with the regulatory body OFCOM issuing guidelines to broadcasters. Dodsworth (p.31) reports that broadcasters were instructed to be alert to \u201chealth claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful: accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it<\/em>\u201d (Dodsworth p. 31).<\/p>\n

One possible manifestation of this policy was the remarkable instruction issued to Oxford professor Sunetra Gupta. On October 14, 2020, she appeared on BBC News<\/em> to talk about the lockdowns imposed in the north of England. It is claimed that just before she went on air, one of the producers told her not to mention the Great Barrington Declaration, a document signed by eminent scientists setting out an alternative policy that would avoid lockdowns and other unorthodox measures.<\/p>\n

Across social media, from almost day one of the covid-19 event, tech giants (\u201cbig tech<\/em>\u201d) were willingly signing up to a strategy of censorship. In April 2020 it was reported that YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki had declared that it would act to remove anything going \u201cagainst World Health Organization<\/em>\u201d recommendations. Notable removals from YouTube included interviews with Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University and British physician Professor Karol Sikora whilst US Senator Rand Paul\u2019s speech questioning the efficacy of facemasks in August 2021 was removed by YouTube. Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of part of the MRnA technology used in the covid-19 injections, and who has become a notable critic of official policies and narratives, was also removed from Twitter.<\/p>\n

A large part of the policing of debate across social media platforms has involved issuance of warnings that a given post violates \u201ccommunity standards<\/em>\u201d in some way and some, such as LinkedIn, state that content at variance with authorities can lead to censoring. As Dr. David Thunder has documented, the exact wording of Linkedin\u2019s policy on \u201cmisinformation<\/em>\u201d states: \u201cDo not share content that directly contradicts guidance from leading global health organizations and public health authorities<\/em>.\u201d Thunder notes: \u201cWhat does this actually mean, in practice? It means that some select persons, just because they got nominated to a \u2018public health authority\u2019 or a \u2018leading global health organization,\u2019 are protected by Linkedin from any robust criticism from the public or from other scientists<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Furthermore, censorship and suppression of academic debate has been reported with respect to academic journals whereby articles and research running against the so-called scientific consensus appear to have been unfairly removed or blocked. For example Dr. Peter McCullough reports unjustified censorship of a peer reviewed and published article relating to covid-19 whilst, more broadly, undue suppression of legitimate research findings was reported by Dr. Tess Lawrie with respect to Ivermectin trials. All of these are worrying indications that academic processes themselves have become subject to nefarious censorship and control.<\/p>\n

The censorship continues unabated and it might even be intensifying. Whilst detailed and systematic research should be conducted in order to identify the scale and range of the censorship that has been occurring, it is reasonably clear now that, relative to pre-2020, the levels are unprecedented and represent a normalization, or routinization, of censorship.<\/p>\n

Character assassination through smearing<\/strong><\/p>\n

Suppression of debate is achieved not only through formal censorship, but also through indirect tactics whereby attempts are made to destroy the reputation of those challenging power. Although perhaps not widely appreciated, the tactic of character assassination appears to have become more prevalent in recent years and it appears to be an important feature of contemporary propaganda and our \u2018democratic\u2019 landscape.<\/p>\n

Broadly speaking, smear campaigns are designed to avoid substantive rational debate and instead denigrate the person making the argument \u2013 \u2018playing the man rather than the ball<\/em>\u2019 or \u2018shooting the messenger<\/em>\u2019. A feature of smear campaigns is the use of identity politics sensibilities such as concern (legitimate) over racism and the deployment of pejorative and tendentious labels. For example, those questioning covid-19 policies have sometimes been described as far right or fascist whilst pejorative use of the term \u201cconspiracy theorist<\/em>\u201d is frequently employed to describe those questioning official narratives.<\/p>\n

Smear campaigns can be justifiably seen as underhand and disreputable approaches to challenging dissenting voices and they frequently pass off without observers or even the victims being fully aware that they are being targeted: those ordering or enabling the smears have good reason to avoid being uncovered whilst those executing the smears, i.e. the journalists, will defend their hit pieces as legitimate critique. In the case of the covid-19 event, however, at least one high level smear campaign has been identified. At the time of the release of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) during autumn 2020, the authors were only aware of a barrage of hostile media attention such as the above noted instruction by the BBC<\/em> to Professor Sunetra Gupta to not mention the Declaration during an interview. But at least some of the hostile coverage was not simply a spontaneous reaction by journalists but had been initiated by high-level officials. When the GBD was published, leaked emails showed Anthony Fauci and National Institute of Health director Francis Collins discussing the need to swiftly shut it down. Collins wrote in an email that this \u201cproposal from the three fringe epidemiologists \u2026 seems to be getting a lot of attention \u2026 There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises<\/em>\u201d. Rather than a civilised and robust scientific debate, a smear campaign followed.<\/p>\n

Other prominent instances, unproven but which bear the hallmarks of a directed smear campaign include repeated attacks on the popular US podcaster Joe Rogan.<\/p>\n

In the European sphere, Professor Bhakdi, an early and prominent critic of Covid-19 policies has been repeatedly accused of anti-semitism and was recently prosecuted by the German authorities for inciting hatred. None of the accusations made in these attacks appear to be reasonable. Rogan, for example, was chastised for promoting the use of Ivermectin with many journalists referring to it, misleadingly, as \u201chorse dewormer<\/em>\u201d. The vast bulk of Bhakdi\u2019s work and output concerns the covid-19 policies and, relatively speaking, his references to any issue related to Judaism is at most vanishingly small.<\/p>\n

A subtle and arguably more widespread form of smearing involves the routine labelling of information by social media companies as harmful; for example, the independent UK-based outlet OffGuardian<\/em> has its tweets subject to a blanket warning suggesting their output might be \u2018unsafe<\/em>\u2019 and contain \u2018violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world harm<\/em>\u2019. Such labelling is, arguably, defamatory.<\/p>\n

Coercion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Suppression of inconvenient opinions works through both the realm of information \u2013 censoring a person\u2019s voice or ad hominem <\/em>attacks \u2013 but also through action in the real, \u201cmaterial<\/em>\u201d, world via coercion. This could be the creation of conditions that deter people from speaking their conscience by offering material incentives or, alternatively, threatening to deplete someone\u2019s material circumstances. Put simply, the threat of loss of earnings. In the case of the covid-19 event the role of coercion can be seen through the threats to employment experienced by those challenging the narrative.<\/p>\n

For example, Professor Julie Ponesse was forced from her position at Western University in Canada because of her refusal to receive the covid-19 injection following the issuing of \u201cvaccine<\/em>\u201d mandate there whilst a similar fate was suffered by Dr. Aaron Kheriarty (Professor at University of California Irvine, School of Medicine and director of the Medical Ethics Program). Other academics have cited lack of institutional support with respect to their academic freedom, such as Professor Martin Kuldorff.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Julie Ponesse<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The coercive nature of mandates is particularly pernicious in that their implementation in universities forces \u2018dissident<\/em>\u2019 academics to either go against their beliefs and opinions and comply or otherwise leave their posts. The disciplining effect is, of course, much more widely felt across the academy: the few who lose their posts serve as a warning to everyone else to reconsider their beliefs and actions. In particular, younger academics and those completing their PhDs will come to understand that compliance with the dominant narrative is the only realistic option if they are to realise their goal of an academic career.<\/p>\n

The tactics of censorship, smearing and coercion are synergistic and help construct an environment in which self censorship becomes ubiquitous: Deplatforming of dissident scientists sends a clear warning as to the subject matter and issues that are off limits whilst examples of smearing highlight the potential unpleasant consequences of discussing such issues. Coercion acts as a final hardstop for anyone entertaining the possibility of risking talking about censored issues and riding out the smears that will result: loss of job and income is simply too much to bear. Overall, the role of authorities in enabling censorship and coercion results in, broadly speaking, an institutionalised culture in which suppression of opinions and debate becomes the norm.<\/p>\n

The Dangers to Democracy and Rational Debate: Online Harm Legislation and Dis\/misinformation \u2018Fact-checkers\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

Clearly this situation has deleterious consequences for rational debate and democracy. John Stuart Mill explained that silencing the expression of an opinion robs us all of the opportunity to either hear an argument that might turn out to be true, or refine or reject an opinion that is faulty. There are very good reasons for this, as Mill notes: \u201cFirst: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. \u2026 All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

And: \u201cif wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Scientific and scholarly research demands such openness to questioning and critique and, behind concepts such as tenure, is the core grounding for the academy that scholars need to be allowed to present what might appear to be controversial and even offensive (to some) opinions.<\/p>\n

Of course, there are well argued and established limits to freedom of expression \u2013 incitement to violence, for example \u2013 but we are not talking about the usual areas of debate and controversy that lie at the limits of permissible speech. Rather, we are talking about the right of people to raise questions and concerns about policies that directly affect them, such as lockdown, masking and \u2018vaccinations<\/em>\u2019, and, moreover, the right of credentialed experts to raise such questions in the public sphere. That the censorship, smearing and coercion of such people has come to be tolerated is a clear indicator of how far our democracies have slipped into an authoritarian abyss.<\/p>\n

And events are, potentially, about to become even worse with the pushing through of so-called \u2018online harm bills<\/em>\u2019 including in the UK, Europe and Canada. In the UK, the proposed bill creates a category of legal but \u2018harmful<\/em>\u2019 speech: as described by the pressure group Big Brother Watch: \u201cUnder the threat of penalties, the legislation will compel online intermediaries to censor swathes of online discussion including in matters of general discourse and public policy. Harmful content is defined entirely by the Secretary of State who is also granted a host of executive powers throughout the legislation<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Liberty<\/em> has explained further the potential dangers of such developments: \u201cWe are concerned that the \u2018legal but harmful\u2019 category set out in the OSB is inadequately prescribed by law and risks disproportionately infringing on persons\u2019 right to freedom of expression and privacy. In particular, we are concerned about the wide definition of online harm as meaning \u201cphysical or psychological harm\u201d (clause 187). This is an extremely low threshold, and encompasses innumerable kinds of harm, the extent of which in our view far exceeds the qualifications on Article 10 provided by the ECHR and HRA<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

And, as Lord Sumption points out regarding the proposed UK Online Harms Bill: \u201cThe real vice of the bill is that its provisions are not limited to material capable of being defined and identified. It creates a new category of speech which is legal but \u2018harmful\u2019. The range of material covered is almost infinite, the only limitation being that it must be liable to cause \u2018harm\u2019 to some people. Unfortunately, that is not much of a limitation. Harm is defined in the bill in circular language of stratospheric vagueness. It means any \u2018physical or psychological harm\u2019. As if that were not general enough, \u2018harm\u2019 also extends to anything that may increase the likelihood of someone acting in a way that is harmful to themselves, either because they have encountered it on the internet or because someone has told them about it<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is likely that such legislative developments will operate in tandem with so-called \u201cfact checking<\/em>\u201d entities and algorithms that work to define and then exclude what is defined as \u201cmisinformation<\/em>\u201d, \u201cdisinformation<\/em>\u201d, and now \u201cmalinformation<\/em>\u201d. The latter two are being defined now as, respectively, false information spread in order to mislead or cause harm and accurate information which is used out of context in order to harm or mislead. These terms are so nebulous that they will enable authorities to proscribe virtually any serious debate or criticism in the public sphere.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Here we see the continuing development and entrenchment of the mis\/disinformation fact checking industry noted earlier. During the Covid-19 event the United Nations itself started working with the public relations entity Purpose to \u201ccombat the growing scourge of covid-19 misinformation<\/em>\u201d which is described as a \u201cvirus spread by people<\/em>\u201d. Purpose states \u201c[t]hrough Verified, we are leveraging the UN brand, as well as popular brands that connect audiences online and offline: from Cartoon Network in Brazil to Flipkart in India<\/em>\u201d. UNESCO, similarly, is promoting education about so-called \u201cconspiracy theories<\/em>\u201d. Remarkably, and in apparent contradiction to rhetoric regarding inclusiveness and community-driven decisionmaking, the WHO actually asks people to report on people spreading \u201cmisinformation<\/em>\u201d: As such, an un-elected international organization is actively advocating for the suppression of free speech in democratic societies.<\/p>\n

Entities tasked with deciding what is true and what is false, as opposed to allowing ideas and arguments to be openly debated as Mill would suggest, are already creating the link between dis\/misinformation and harm.<\/p>\n

For example, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a state-sponsored think tank, attacked the disparate groups questioning the Covid-19 response with a publication titled \u201cBetween Conspiracy and Extremism: A Long Covid Threat?<\/em>\u201d The institute tweeted: \u201cToday we launch a new series of reports on the global anti-lockdown movement, beginning with this paper examining how covid restrictions have brought together a broad church of activists in a conspiracy-extremist movement we call a \u2018hybrid threat\u2019<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the issue of coercive measures, the recent passing of a bill in California, that will enable doctors who spread \u2018false information<\/em>\u2019 to be charged with \u2018unprofessional conduct<\/em>\u2019 and have their licenses revoked, is a worrying sign of just how aggressive authorities are becoming.<\/p>\n

The trajectory here is clear to discern and it entails the move to a world where the truth is defined by fact-checkers and authorities, and legislation provides the underlying coercive framework to ensure any deviance is punished. This is entirely at odds with basic principles of open debate, objective scholarship and freedom of expression and is not compatible with democracy.<\/p>\n

The end of democracy?<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is nothing new about censorship, smearing and coercion in western democracies. For some time now, those questioning, for example, western foreign policy have been subjected to such tactics whilst the broader 9\/11 global war on terror spawned wide ranging examples of censorship, smearing and coercion in order to shore up official narratives and the belligerent wars that have been fought under its banner.<\/p>\n

Indeed, in the realm of foreign policy and war, the prevalence of propaganda and associated drives to marginalise dissent are well known to researchers in these fields. And, today, in 2022, we are witnessing a preeminent example of coercion as we see the Wikileaks<\/em> founder, Julian Assange, facing the prospect of deportation to the US and the rest of his life in prison. His crime was to reveal accurate information about the 9\/11 wars especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is little reason to doubt that authorities in the West are seeking to make a powerful example of Assange; a warning to the rest of us as to the price of questioning our governments when they commit illegal wars of aggression.<\/p>\n

What is new with the covid-19 event is a combination of the spread of these strategies of suppression and a sharp uptick in awareness amongst increasingly large swathes of the population as to the existence of propaganda in democracies. The spread can be seen in how it is now a large number of medical scientists who have been at the receiving end of drives to suppress debate, whereas before it was often just a handful of relatively unknown dissident social scientists researching foreign policy issues. Regarding public awareness, attempting to censor high profile researchers from the medical sciences alerts more of the public as to what is going on. And, of course, as we rapidly see the dissident scientists now being vindicated by the facts \u2013 lockdowns don\u2019t work, the \u201cvaccinations<\/em>\u201d can harm, etc. \u2013 more people become aware of the basic truth that the official covid-19 response has been underpinned by ferocious propaganda campaigns designed to silence any experts speaking truth to power.<\/p>\n

It is also apparently the case that trust in mainstream, or legacy, media continues a sharp decline whilst, presumably, increasing numbers of people seek out the new independent media platforms and go to organisations for alt-media (Panda, Hart) for reliable information on covid-19 related issues and more widely.<\/p>\n

And yet the broader trajectory for our public spheres looks ominous. Further legislative measures to redefine free speech, networks of sponsored fact-checkers defining what is and what is not, resources poured into censoring, smearing and coercing dissident voices all parallel what some analysts argue is a wider drive to restructure Western societies.<\/p>\n

Ending any semblance of democracy may indeed be the goal, starting with the ending of freedom of expression. There are likely to be dark days ahead and it has never been so important for there to be a robust and uncompromising defence of freedom of expression.<\/p>\n

Author: Dr. Piers Robinson<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

yogaesoteric
\nNovember 11, 2022<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Since the start of the covid event, authorities around the world have sought to implement quite extraordinary policies including the so-called \u201clocking down\u201d of entire populations, compulsory masking and coercion through, for example, the mandating of multiple \u2018vaccine\u2019 injections. Many of these policies fly in the face of long-established and well-evidenced public health approaches to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1188],"tags":[1516],"class_list":["post-100082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-power-and-corruption-the-matrix-of-the-master-and-slave-3480-en","tag-article_of_the_week"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100082","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100082"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100082\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":100083,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100082\/revisions\/100083"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}