It's not what I said-it's why I couldn't say it.
It's not what I said-it's why I couldn't say it.
The censorship of an ordinary person. A Talk in the Park and coffee with Prof. Ennos
You wouldn’t have thought a talk about the welfare of our children was controversial. This posting is about your freedom. Read it in the Daily Sceptic
“There is a dangerous intolerant totalitarianism, aided by timidity, strangling debate in this country.”
Read Professor Ennos’ account of our experience here , Cancelled Again.
My wife and I met Richard and his wife Diana for coffee in Portstewart during their holiday in N.Ireland which also encompassed Enniskillen and Newcastle. So a forthcoming visit to Derry led us into history, civil rights, freedom and back to our experience in Edinburgh. Over 2 hours of chat ensued and I reminded them of the days of the Scots invasion when steamers from Glasgow, Ardrossan, Stranraer and Ayr queued up at the Queen’s bridge and disgorged thousands of Scots to fill Portstewart and Portrush….in the 50s!
As an extension to my article
Concluding comments:
Are we caught up somewhere between what the German philosopher Herman Lubbe(1) called “communicative silencing” in which an individual's perception of the distribution of public opinion influences that individual's willingness to express their own opinions
and as postulated by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neuman -all that has to be done then is to “control” public opinion-
and this means the perpetrators avoid the need to acknowledge, and be held accountable for, what they have done, through the imposition of rules around what is allowed to be said-”sayability rules”(1)
and in which some people are allowed to acknowledge “mistakes” because they control the content and tenor of what is said?
So some are censored, some are silenced, some lose their jobs, some become criminals through new laws and some silence themselves….and some aren’t and some don’t. How come?
Ivor Cummins ,a vey well-respected and much used data analyst, clearly describes the degree of censorship on “Covid Censorship, Climate Change, and Fighting "The Narrative"
Ivor makes the point that “experts were pushed out of media and censored, (you were ) not allowed on mainstream unless you go with the narrative.”
He goes onto say,
“The data was there wrt IFR but no one would touch it because the system had already decided what was going to happen-masks, lockdowns, nothing was going to be allowed to threaten the roll out of the vaccines. But the train (of vaccine roll outs) was coming off the tracks so eventually you needed censorship at extreme levels.”
He refers to the approach of Florida governor De Santis —"he brought in the best in the world-Professors Bhattacharya, Levitt and Kulldorf-when everyone else was censoring them”
On his personal experience Ivor describes how “ Youtube took down 14 of my posts-the system had reacted.”
The HART group makes a similar point about the freedom to express your opinions. Their article maintains that it is not about whether you agree with the speaker, it is about the speaker’s right to state their opinions in a free society,
the article uses this James Delingpole interview with Dr Mike Yeadon as an example, in it James describes himself and Dr Yeadon in the same terms as Norman Fenton described himself-“we have become pariahs” defined as outcast, person who is avoided, someone who is despised or rejected.
Dr Yeadon a former director of Pfizer eminently qualified to speak on matters around vaccinations, his opinion that there was no pandemic and on the cause of excess deaths, he quotes Denis Rancourt, former professor at the university of Ottawa, who has analysed the excess death data in all US states and “found there was no excess deaths until countries adopted their protocols” Views such as these have led him to be, despite his qualifications, as with Norman Fenton, to be classified as a spreader of misinformation and banned..
Ivor Cummins
1 Aftermath Harald Jahner Pub WH Allen
Self censorship was a big thing before the internet. One knew in one’s heart and mind that the mainstream media was lying. But in casual encounters when mainstream topics were broached, the mainstream narrative was invoked.
The mainstream narratives now are all simply stupid, people who utter them sound like AI robots. But without a cabal narrative, thousands of rivulets and creeks from varied terrains following the natural law of gravity passing through forrest, canyon, grassy plain and granite mountain join together into a true river of natural law. The cabal fictions are struggling to survive on the internet. The internet is the terrain where information lives.
Self censorship exists when there is a narrative backed by power. It is becoming harder, perhaps impossible, to actually identify and isolate such a narrative. Many people today cannot find a mainstream narrative to identify with or fight against.
I didn’t talk about my baby’s death for years. Not being able to find the words is not self censorship. Life can exist beyond language. Perhaps our language needs to be expanded. I do believe our language is expanding. Trump has expanded public language, though the few diehards glued to their TVs or cowering at the feat of their mentors and masters and friends who funnel TV to them are ignorant of the organic vastness of the electronic networks.
Very engaging article Hugh. Glad you and the Prof enjoyed our lovely town, 3K is our go to for an Ulster fry. The virtues of the BBC are slowly crumbling with the recent scandals, which will hopefully wake up the die hards who defend the Cabal narrative spun to them down the tube 24/7 like their lives depend on it.