The recent digital purge of dissent on Twitter has led to public outcry from public figures whose voices, and views have been censored and suppressed. Despite America’s freedom of speech, Big Tech oligarch’s have constructed their policies to resemble that of a one-party state. Despite social media platforms being headquartered on U.S. soil, the companies can create their own rules and guidelines, as they are legally viewed as a private business. This means that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to communications conducted on social media. Today’s social media has become the primary means of global communication, forcing reliance on the developers, and compliance from its users.
Many who have been affected, have moved and begun establishing themselves on other popular platforms, such as Gettr. Since its inception, there have been restrictions on the usage of the internet. Although this is a free country, there are basic laws set in place to allow the U.S. government to protect the individualism of its citizens. In America, citizens have the right to dissent, as well as voice their concerns, no matter the perspective. When that concern goes against the narrative, despite the intent, many find themselves stripped of their ability to practice free speech. Should speaking out against the government, or governments of other countries be a crime?
Twitter updated its policy just one day after the power was handed to Parag to include “The misuse of private media,” stating a blanket term “Sharing personal media, such as images or videos, can potentially violate a person’s privacy, and may lead to emotional or physical harm.”
In a 2020 interview, Parag stated1
“Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.”
“The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.”
“Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
“[H]ow we recommend content and that sort of, is, is, a struggle that we’re working through in terms of how we make sure these recommendation systems that we’re building, how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.”
While many Americans depend on social media platforms for daily communications to friends and families around the world, many have already been purged during the Digital Cultural Revolution2. Using the dismantlement of notable public figures, the extinction of powerful opposition increases mass civilian adherence to The Great Narrative3.
In communist China, Mao used the phrase “kill the chicken to scare the monkey” which relied on the public execution to enforce a state of compliance to a specific narrative. Monkeys fear conflict from the newly learned narrative, encouraging self-censorship as an inarguable fact of everyday life. Dissent becomes intolerant even among the other primates. This method ensures total control of a particular species, and full compliance with a great narrative. The passion to obey is inherited throughout generations, based on the lived experiences of their former peers and ancestors. Is Parag’s system following a similar totalitarian tactic?
Dr. Robert Malone
Dr. Robert Malone, one of the originators of mRNA, was removed from Twitter for voicing his concerns about the potential long-term toxicity of nanoparticles, and other potential hazards. Dr. Malone discussed the potential hazards of nanoparticle build up, and the potential toxicity of the spike protein, among other concerns.
“We all knew it would happen eventually. Today it did. Over a half million followers gone in a blink of an eye. That means I must have been on the mark, so to speak. Over the target. It also means we lost a critical component in our fight to stop these vaccines being mandated for children and to stop the corruption in our governments, as well as the medical-industrial complex and pharmaceutical industries.” – Dr. Malone wrote4 on Substack
In today’s digital society being banned often means suppression of information which the proponents of the great narrative do not want revealed. If misinformation was such a danger, wouldn’t it make sense to also censor works of fiction, to ensure the security of humanity? The fact that Dr. Robert Malone was unable to even present his concerns publicly shows the negligence the criminals in power throughout our government working together with telecommunication platforms. No individual or organization can predict the future effects of a novel treatment against the coronavirus, especially those responsible for creating the algorithm speech filter responsible for determining truth from disinformation. Nor can be predicted the long-term effects of the spike protein, and no danger can be presented by being allowed the decency to express a genuine concern, resulting in a discussion.
What is even more alarming is the fact that Dr. Malone was an instrumental facilitator in the development of the mRNA medical technology currently being mandated throughout society. Should the people have the right to question something that is routinely forcibly injected into their bodies, and that of the mass population? What is the medical community and our federal government so afraid of?
Marjorie Taylor Greene
On January 2nd, 2022 Marjorie Taylor Greene was also removed for expressing concerns. Her posts copied user data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System5 (VAERS), leading to her removal of her personal account. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System for citizens to voice their personal experience with the COVID-19 vaccine. Should government officials have the right to question the government?
“VAERS is a national vaccine safety surveillance program that helps to detect unusual or unexpected reporting patterns of adverse events for vaccines.”
“Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event.” – Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Although the VAERS reporting system was created by the CDC, an American health agency, discussion of its results displays dissent against the narrative, and is cause for revocation of civil rights, including communication with friends and family.
Easily politically weaponizing Marjorie Taylor Green based on her political affiliations, Parag’s system was able to take down the Representative, responsible for the voices of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Yet beyond the artificial political divide, there is only good versus evil. Mandates, forcing one’s consent to gain individual benefit, are inherently evil. To advocate for controlling one’s actions, thoughts, or beliefs, is against God, humanity, and America. Today’s mainstream media aims to smear the obvious distinction between good and evil, targeting specific political opponents, distracting society while the villains tear apart our country from the inside out.
It doesn’t matter how you feel about another human being’s beliefs, despite how strongly you may feel compelled to argue it. Everyone in America is entitled to their individual voice and belief, as long as it does not infringe upon the individual rights of others, no matter how triggering that position may be. At the end of the day, if one chooses to silence others who disagree, eventually one will also succumb to the inevitable fate of suppression. Restricting the equal opportunity to speak freely, destroys the principles in which our nation was founded upon. When individual voices are silenced, the void only encourages self-censorship, removing the ability to make decisions.
Other voices silenced include:
- Roger Stone – October 2017
- Alex Jones – September 6th, 2019
- David Icke – November 4th, 2020
- Steve Bannon – November 5th, 2020
- Michael Flynn – January 8th, 2021
- James O’Keefe – January 15th, 2021
Mao’s phrase “kill the chicken to scare the monkey” is a concept which still exists today. It relies on political correctness, and aims to enforce a state of compliance to today’s modern narrative. That narrative may change, however the concept of censorship remains the same. Sacrifice your own beliefs in order to uphold the blueprint for utopia. One person’s utopia is another’s demise. In tens of millions cases Chinese civilians died in an effort to uphold Mao’s fabrication of reality. Deng Xiaoping [Mao’s successor] upheld Mao’s great communist narrative, further expanding business internationally into the Chinese Communist Party’s global market which exists today. Like modern digital monkeys, we are being trained to fear provoking the narrative.
Who should decide what form of thought is acceptable? The argument against free speech warns against the extremes of racism, pornography, terrorism, crime, and violence. At the end of the day, these extremes represent less than one percent of the human population who wish to freely speak their minds. What is the corporate narrative so afraid of? Free speech, free press, and freedom of religion are what founded America, despite the oligarch narrative to destroy, and discredit our country’s history, giving opportunity to the modern socialist-communist influence.
On April 17th, 2010 at 1:41am Parag Agrawal tweeted6 “I am not sure what is more troubling: death of free speech or that ‘peace in society’ is threatened if a book is not banned.”
Parag Agrawal represents another brick in the system of digital oppression targeting dissent through the ability to operate as a private international business, rather than abide by our U.S. Constitution. Digital technology makes it easy to blame removals on “the algorithm,” choosing to evade responsibility for open discrimination. Twitter is a company founded and operating on American soil, yet platforms like these have become the official gatekeeper for allowed thought, and for determining which thoughts must be reformed. While it may be impossible to individually monitor all Twitter’s users simultaneously, the truth is, since the inception of censorship, the cause for removal has moved closer and closer to a one-party voice. To extinguish the voice of opposition is to weaken the values of western civilization and freedom of individual belief. Yet those opposed jump to the most extreme example of what could happen if everyone was allowed to speak their mind. At the end of the day, we are being manipulated to believe a single narrative that best suits the interests of those prospering off our individual endeavors. Should an algorithm determine your public opinions and personal beliefs?