Just 15 years ago, the story about Big Pharma pushing a largely untested, completely new technology onto the entire population turning them into lifelong patients under manufactured pretenses and a left-wing journalist getting censored and prevented from sharing her report about this by companies that bankrolled the current presidency would raise every leftist hackle in existence.
But today the only person who will report it is Tucker Carlson.
I’m not the one who changed.
I really would like to see some discussion about how much money is tied up in these vaccines, how much do these companies (and who else?) stand to profit from them, and who is going to pay for all this. We are talking about vaccinating the entire population of the world several times over. Let that sink in. The pharma companies are not in this for humanitarian reasons. Not that I would expect them to, they are companies that need to show profit, after all.
Let’s also not forget about drugs such as thalidomide or swine flu vaccine fiasco in the US in 1976. There is a good reason to be distrustful of rushed vaccination and it is shocking that there is no serious conversation in the mainstream media about this. In a free society, one would go about this with an openness and we would hear a variety of voices. Instead, there is only one message that sounds more like a propaganda, and silencing of everyone else. I guess the government is very confident they can make everyone to take this, either out of fear of the virus or perhaps the fear of losing one’s livelihood.
I may disagree with Naomi Wolf, but she should be free to say her piece and canceling her is wrong.
Every time I read something by Naomi Wolf, I start out nodding along, and end by disagreeing more than I agree. She believes things much too readily. So normally, encountering anything by her, I’d expect to conclude that she has no credibility.
But the part where everyone banned her article immediately and simultaneously? I’m much more inclined to take her seriously now. She may usually be wrong, but… everybody stumbles on something right once in a while, no?
LikeLike
Even a broken clock is right twice a day… however, I am going to blame Moderna for this misunderstanding. Some genius wrote up an explanation of their technology on their website comparing it to a piece of software programming your cells. Add a bunch of jargon about nano that is employed on other websites describing these vaccines, I am not surprised that a scientifically illiterate person will end up thinking that these vaccines have some kind of nanochip in them after reading all of that. You can read Moderna’s explanation here: https://www.modernatx.com/mrna-technology/mrna-platform-enabling-drug-discovery-development
That being said, I agree with the banning part. Let the woman speak and if she is wrong, explain why. Also, do a better job explaining how these vaccines works, what is in them, and be honest about the pros and cons taking them. Many people will still want to take them, and censorship is just making everything look worse.
LikeLike
It certainly doesn’t help that more than a few of the (hearts)(stars)SCIENCE!!(stars)(hearts) people seem really into the idea of injectable/implantable information tech. For already-wary people, it’s a very small leap…
LikeLike
That’s really frightening (via Mike). The article talks only about endangering women, but from my Israeli pov it is endangering everyone. Also, I didn’t know Japan was that backward.
// Facebook is considering building facial recognition capabilities into its smart glasses – which would make life easy for stalkers
Tech gets even more in your Face-book
Picture this: you’re sitting in a bar and a creepy stranger keeps trying to talk to you. You ignore them. The next day you get a text from that stranger. Not only do they know your phone number, they know where you live; in fact, they know everything about you. They were wearing Facebook smart glasses, you see. The moment they looked in your direction the glasses identified you via facial recognition technology.
This, it seems, is precisely the sort of Black Mirror-esque future Facebook wants. The tech company (and serial privacy invader) has teamed up with Ray-Ban to develop a range of smart glasses. While it’s not clear exactly what these devices will do yet, Buzzfeed has reported that Facebook is considering building facial recognition capabilities into them. During an internal meeting on Thursday, Andrew Bosworth, Facebook’s vice-president of augmented and virtual reality, told employees that Facebook was currently assessing the legal issues surrounding this.
…
Japan’s un-empowering minister for women’s empowerment
It’s illegal for married couples to have different surnames in Japan. Couples don’t have to use the man’s last name but do so 96% of the time. There has been pressure to change this ridiculous law and let women keep their birth names after marriage but conservatives reckon this would damage the traditional family unit.
… Japan’s minister for women’s empowerment and gender … she was one of 50 politicians who recently opposed a legal change to shared surnames.
LikeLike
It’s very interesting how the political aspects of Facebook’s surveillance mode are always completely ignored in favor of some bizarre fantasy about poor victimized women.
LikeLike
Wait, regarding “It’s illegal for married couples to have different surnames in Japan.”
What happens in cases of divorce and remarriage when a woman has children with a family name of her former husband?
Conservatives ask to ‘think of the children,’ so started doing exactly that.
If somebody is interested, found a great article about marriage, divorce, workplace and single mothers in Japan. Unsurprisingly, talk of family values hides very anti-family policies:
// In 2011, only 20 percent of divorced mothers were receiving child support, according to James Raymo, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who has published a number of papers on single mothers in Japan. When a couple gets divorced, the divorce papers ask who will be the child’s custodian, and only allows couples to list one name, according to Masami Kittaka, a divorce lawyer at Otani and Partners who practices law in Tokyo and New York. Officially, there is no such thing as joint custody in Japan, she said. When couples get divorced, the woman usually takes the child and assumes full financial responsibility.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/09/japan-is-no-place-for-single-mothers/538743/
LikeLike
Many children of divorced parents in the US have a surname different from the mother they live with. It is not a big deal.
It is interesting to see how divorce arrangements typically work in Japan, though. This is very similar to Viet Nam, and perhaps most of Asia. In VN, when a couple divorces, the children go with the mother (with father having little or no contact), and then if mother re-marries, the children go to the mother’s parents. Viet people view it as uniquely American, for a man to marry a woman who already has kids, and then adopt those kids, or at least treat them as if they were his own children. In most of the world, such children are seen only as impediments.
LikeLike
Why is everyone upset. The law was changed back in 1986 to make it so that vaccine manufacturers couldn’t be sued. It was written into the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1986).
After its enactment, vaccine manufacturers gave politicians political donations to expand the childhood vaccine schedule, so that the number of vaccines received by children rose sharply. At the same time, the price of vaccines went up so that the extra money raised by higher vaccine sales/profits would pay not only for political donations, but to set up a tribunal that paid compensation only after the parents of vaccine damaged children went through hell for a few years.
As a result, the USA ended up with a so-called “no fault” system that exempted vaccine manufacturers of any blame for anything that they did no matter how negligent or even criminal, which created perfect conditions in which to attract, entangle, and/or corrupt politicians so that they would continue expanding vaccine rollouts while reducing accountability even further.
Even as far back as 10 years ago, vaccine manufacturers were so brazen that they would openly advertise for unemployed mothers and the like to be employed and trained so that they could go online and “share stories” of how good vaccines are while also being taught talking points to use against the distraught parents of any child whose child had been damaged.
Along with training regular people to gaslight, ridicule, defame and harass others, those same companies practically blackmailed universities with grants, bought most of the media with several billion dollars of advertising per year, and went so far as to coopt medical regulatory agencies so that any medical professional who simply said what their eyes saw regarding vaccine injury would be dragged before a board and/or stripped of their license.
I didn’t hear anyone on the left or right say anything about any of those things these past couple of decades and so, respectfully, I don’t think that every hackle in existence would have lifted but rather, according to the evidence, not a single one would have even twitched.
We didn’t get to the point where vaccines could be foisted on everyone by an uncaring government full of uncaring agencies overnight. We got here after decades worth of politicians, medical professionals, journalists, academics, and bureaucrats being trained to do exactly what they’re doing right now by practicing on young families and children across the world who couldn’t yet speak let alone defend themselves.
It seems that Naomi Wolf didn’t say anything very meaningful in her censored video, which somewhat spoils the story – though unless someone can find a copy, no one knows what she actually said.
We do however have her followup video, still present on Facebook. In this followup video, she repeatedly says that in 2017, she overheard a conversation in which someone from Apple said they were working on vaccine nanotechnology that involved time travel. At the time it just seemed weird, she says. And then she goes on to list all kinds of proposed “nano” technologies, including nanoparticles, trackable nanoparticles, and implantable nanochips that track your vaccination history. And then she says that for the Apple Watch, “time travel” meant seeing your future schedule. And so maybe Apple guy was talking about nano implants that – predict your future? She comes across as extremely confused, and as anxious to justify that her censored video actually made sense.
What does it all add up to? The cyberpunk world of medical experimentation and control through nano-bio-hacking and the censorious capacities of Big Tech have certainly united in our current dystopia, where the declaration of a global public health emergency is energizing both. But one would prefer our censored journalist heroes to actually know what they are talking about. Ms Wolf badly needs some kind of technical advisor.
Who cares what the video said, though? It’s the censorship that’s the problem, not her video-making skills. Tens of millions of people post confusing, badly edited videos on Youtube and FB daily and nobody cares. Why is this one being censored? Why is anything being censored? Who are these people to censor any of us?
I feel a little out of date when it comes to this new censorship category of “vaccine misinformation”. I remember back when coordinated social media censorship was about getting rid of Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones, and demonetizing conservatives. Back then I thought I had some idea of what was being removed.
But now I really have no idea what kind of things are being removed. Is it just Covid vaccines? Is it anything about any kind of vaccine? Do mask or lockdown skeptics get removed too? And then there’s the proliferation of warning captions that Twitter now has.
In the 2000s, the US developed techniques of warring against decentralized networks like Al Qaeda: map the network, find the crucial links and weakest links, remove them so the network falls apart. Those same techniques are now undoubtedly being used to break up networks of unwanted opinion within our own social media.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment