A defrocked philosopher and bon viveur, Giordano Bruno committed a heinous crime: his philosophy did not agree with the official science embodied by the Catholic Church. Bruno thought the Earth rotated around other planets and the Universe was infinite: real heresy. After eight years of detention, unlike Galileo, he refused to recant and was burned at the stake in AD 1600.
Bruno’s end was extreme. Although it would not happen nowadays, the persecution principle is alive and kicking. It has been energised but also brought to the surface by the Covid pandemic.
A recent publication on censorship and suppression and its tactics and countertactics drew our attention. The study was based on interviews with established scientists “who were censored for their heterodox views on COVID-19”.
Participants reported 12 censorship and suppression tactics used by the medical establishment and the media due to their critical or unorthodox positions on COVID-19. Our analysis is that these fall into three broad categories: Silencing and Censorship, Denigration and Discrediting of an individual and Complaints and Intimidation.
There are also other tactics coming to the fore that are context specific. Shadowbanning occurs when social media platform stops a user’s content from showing up without notifying the user.
The reactions of the victims were interesting. Intimidation did not seem to work. All those interviewed carried on articulating their work and thoughts. Some took legal actions and others formed support networks. Perhaps the most interesting reaction was the use of alternative means of communication. Coming under attack requires highly effective communication strategies to get your points across.
Silencing and Censorship can be addressed by finding alternative sources of communication (e.g. Substack) and media outlets that are better at dealing with and expressing uncertainties. Denigration and Discrediting require keeping calm and not responding in kind while sticking to an evidence-based approach – counter certainty with uncertainty. Complaints and Intimidation are perhaps the most pervasive strategies and most difficult to deal with. But take advice, confide in trusted sources and play the long game.
Daily Telegraph Associate Editor Camilla Tominey recently wrote:
Yet the only big question now being asked by young people is: why on earth was my school closed when I only ever had an infinitesimal chance of dying of Covid? Again, some of us were posing that very question at the time. But lockdown sceptics were vilified by people such as the Tory MP Neil O’Brien, with his COVID-19 FAQ website behaving as if it was the authority on all things pandemic.
This was a website which sought to humiliate scientists such as Sunetra Gupta, Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson for daring to challenge the SAGE groupthink. In general, journalists who questioned the wisdom of shutting down classrooms were treated like pariahs, accused of putting teachers’ lives at risk. Yet according to the Office for National Statistics, there were just 139 Covid deaths in teaching and educational professionals aged 20 to 64 years from March to December 2020 in England and Wales. Even after schools reopened, coronavirus-related deaths for this group were “statistically significantly lower” than the average.
Academic and Journalistic freedom requires individuals to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead without undue or unreasonable interference. The scientists and doctors in this present study did not refrain from expressing their points of view that others considered objectionable. The ability to overcome such self-censorship is fundamental to a democracy and its capacity to make decisions in the best interest of its citizens.
Dr. Carl Heneghan is the Oxford Professor of Evidence Based Medicine and Dr. Tom Jefferson is an epidemiologist based in Rome who works with Professor Heneghan on the Cochrane Collaboration. This article was first published on their Substack page, which you can subscribe to here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I am sure our Ukrainian correspondent will be along shortly to offer his most gracious apologies.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/pact-future-planetary-technocracy-global-crises-global-corporatocracy/5864483
I posted this earlier in the News Roundup. A long article but it does provide a wealth of information on what Global Government is all about.
It’s the biggest risk we face by far because by its very nature it is not accountable to anyone- they can’t be thrown out. That’s obviously the appeal to these people- that and the God complex. If you were a politician or “leader” of some kind you’d quite fancy a succession of well paid sinecures that the voters couldn’t sack you from
… and worse, there will be a one size fits policy throughout the world, so no way to compare and contrast other ways of doing things nor judge how well we are doing. It will be a dictatorship of do as we say or else.
Yes the point about comparisons is an excellent one
It’s a question of value to us. While there are obvious, and less obvious, benefits from a degree of global standards, excessive enforcement of them can be inimical to the concept of innovation and ensuing benefits.
I do not believe you fully understand the grotesque, wholly encompassing nature of the Totalitarian endeavour. It is not a world we would want to live in. Think 1984 plus worst nightmare. On steroids.
I don’t want global standards. I want accountability. I want to be able to sack who it is that governs me, and cause to be sacked people working for an organisation I fund if they don’t deliver what I am paying for. Anyway, do you seriously think that the people who are pushing world government are concerned with “benefits” from “global standards”?
Quite. I think some people are still making their way to what’s it’s all about though. And once you get there it’s such a brain-f*ck that the easiest thing to do is to reject it as plausible.
Wow, you’re clearly just not getting it
The idea of global governance is to force all nations to work cooperatively and in unison, as expressed by institutions such as the UN or EU. But such wishful thinking does not really materialize, as typified by exactly these institutions.
Governments, whether global or national, are run by politicians. Politicians are people who strive for recognition, live for publicity, fight for leadership, and are driven by a need to exert power and decide over others – in other words, in general, the worst of society!
My father used to say the best Prime Minister would be the one that had to be dragged screaming into office. A successful businessman will prefer to continue in business. Anyone enjoying a satisfying profession will prefer to remain in that profession. Nobody ‘in their right mind’ wants to become a politician.
Clearly, there are politicians whose ideals are to serve and better society – Andrew Bridgen comes to mind – but there is a clear danger that a majority, especially if unsuccessful in their chosen career, may wish to serve and promote some contemporary ideology, particularly if convinced the population is too ignorant to recognize the ideology’s supposed importance.
Thus large populations can easily be coerced to succumb to ideals which little interest, let alone benefit them: globalism, uncontrolled immigration, DEI, climate change, forced medical interventions, commercial sanctions, wars.
In my opinion, we need a better selection process for politicians if we wish to achieve better governments.
I think we also people to be a lot more cynical about politicians, and to expect a lot less from the state in return for the state getting out of our lives as much as possible.
Absolutely. The head of Germany’s Foreign Office (and leader of the Green Party) is famous for once saying that peace negotiations with Putin were unthinkable as long as he did not change his course by 360°, which had the Russians rolling in the aisles (she obviously meant 180°). It was not a slip of the tongue since she repeated 360° twice more. How can Germany’s chief diplomat and leader of the country’s foreign policy be so lacking in basic education?
“The Covid lockdowns are of course the paradigmatic example of this [very foolish public policy]”. How myopic! Covid was a cruelly-calculated, globally-coordinated hoax, a “plandemic, clearly judged such by Reiner Fuellmich and his large team of experts in their 2022 model trial on Covid-19 Crimes Against Humanity, see https://metatron.substack.com/p/reiner-fuellmichs-grand-jury-court.
The alleged global threats to humanity asserted by the globalist establishment are not real threats at all, they are confected threats with the ulterior purpose of wrecking western economies and forcing the people into serfdom via digital straitjackets.
The main threat to this country is the United Nations which is at the centre of all our oppressions, be it the climate change hoax via its subsidiary IPCC, fake “plandemics” via its subsidiary WHO and mass immigration via its subsidiary IOM. We need to talk about withdrawing from the UN and all its evil works.
Our current situation is, let us not forget, a continuation of the C1984 Scamdemic within Agenda 2030, and in this country we are now being pushed very aggressively towards complete societal breakdown and civil war.
If those Deagell forecasts are right…Christ!
To paraphrase a 20th century revolutionary: Who will free us from government?
The bricolage of the functioning of government-as-activity being like the strands of subterranean micro fungi that link every tree in a forest to every other.
Have the globalists considered that there might be a religion that still conceives of the world in spiritual terms? One that has, in some expressions at least, an ambiguous view of the ‘laws of kings’.
Our government is working for Satan.
Great Article———-But who gets to choose this Global Government? —-The answer is NO ONE. It is a Technocratic Coup by the Liberal Progressive (Communist) blob. Capitalism that brought prosperity to half the world is to be replaced by Marxism with the Technocrats in total control of all the wealth and resources.
Are the capitalists – who want us to be slavish consumers – and the marxist technocrats – who want a minimal slave population to do their dirty work – truly aligned? Surely the conflict between the desire for consumers and the desire to preserve the planet for themselves is something we can exploit.
Good point. I would though argue that we haven’t had experienced genuine capitalism for a while now. We appear to live in an age of corporatism rather than capitalism.
Government-as-activity that spans the globe is akin to the pantheistic idea of the spirit of God as the sole force that animates everything.
Any news on how the WHO plan to choreograph a monkeypox scare into the US elections? Or is a new Covid variant ready for release?
The Monkeypox scare got laughed out of court. They’re now working on Bird Flu.
We used to have Government by consent; that is what democracy and the peaceful transition of power represented. We used to have policing by consent.
Now we have neither.
We effectively live in a Dictatorship of detached and self-selecting Elite, both Globalist and National. And the only way they can retain control is to operate a Police State. That is what we are becoming.
We are already in a Police State. Harry Miller is clear on this and I have a lot of respect for his focus on that topic. See his recent interview on the Together channel:
https://www.youtube.com/live/CIQabx8oO8Q
You just need to read H.G.Wells’s The Shape of Things to Come, published in 1933, to understand what’s going on.
It’s all there: technocratic government by “experts”, control of population through pandemics, elimination of national identities and religions, and a limit on the global population to 1 or 2 billion.
It even mentions the year 2030.
When you read around the literature, it’s very interesting to see how often this date pops up. As well as being baked in to the UN’s Agenda2030, it was mentioned by Keynes, and just the other day, by Elon Musk:
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1820799076310352124
The big irony is that with Wells it’s never entirely clear whether he was writing a blueprint, a warning, or a satire, or actually all three at the same time.
Definitely another way to bypass democratic systems of government.
Just as we have seen with all the woke and DEI nonsense which none of us voted for.
Excellent article – thank you.
When Michel Foucault describes the emergence of the state in early modernity as being, in essence, an epistemological or metaphysical phenomenon, is he referring to a postmodern or a rational epistemology? Given his status as a leading postmodernist, I guess the former, in which case, given that ideology’s disdain for logic and evidence, and for reality and reason, we should be wary of his analysis, to say the least.