by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger– Klartext
What the mainstream media is hiding
In the fight against alleged “false information” and “hate speech,” global censorship of the Internet is getting closer and closer: what we are allowed to say, read, and share on social media will be subject to comprehensive control in the future. The United Nations and its sub-organizations UNESCO and WHO, together with the World Economic Forum and the EU, are working diligently on this. This blog could soon no longer exist, and its editor would become a criminal. Unless he finally shuts up.
“Our biggest concern for the next two years,” said EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, “is misinformation and disinformation.” Hear, hear: More urgent than taking action against wars and climate change, against poverty and hunger, is the destruction of freedom of expression.
Isn’t this project hopeless from the start, at least in developed democracies in the Western world? Doesn’t the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fail? “Freedom of expression,” Wikipedia makes clear, “is a human right guaranteed in constitutions as a fundamental right directed against state power to prevent the formation of public opinion and the associated debate with government and legislation from being impaired or even prohibited. In close connection with freedom of expression, freedom of information ensures access to important information, without which critical opinion formation would not be possible. The ban on censorship prevents state authorities from controlling opinions and information. In contrast to a dictatorship, in a democracy the state power is expressly prohibited from using preventative information control through censorship.”
Crystal clear, right?
However, the Corona crisis has shown us how quickly democracies sacrifice fundamental rights when perceived threats seem to make this necessary. The pandemic is over – but Internet giants like Google, Facebook, and YouTube are not just blithely continuing the restrictions on the flow of information that were supposedly necessary to control the disease. UNESCO, the cultural organization of the United Nations, wants to quickly take it to the extreme and make it a permanent situation worldwide.
Suppressing unpopular opinions: That’s what it’s all about.
Their “Guidelines for the management of digital platforms” leave no doubt about this. They include a set of “duties, responsibilities, and roles for states, digital platforms, intergovernmental organizations, civil society, media, etc.” to put an end to “dis- and misinformation, hate speech and conspiracy theories.” (1)
This hair-raising document represents a further step towards censorship and control of all communication on the Internet. If the UNESCO guidelines were implemented, the United Nations would have the authority to determine what constitutes “misinformation” or “hate speech” for the entire Internet worldwide. It is likely to suppress views and information that contradict the narratives of the UN or the governments, companies, and organizations that work with it. “Essentially,” warns the human rights group CitizenGO, “they want to decide what information we can share and dictate what we can and cannot say online. This is not just opinion-mongering – it is a dangerous attempt to impose an ideology that suppresses all dissenting thoughts and beliefs.”
The WHO is pursuing the same goal with the new version of the “International Health Regulations” (IHR), which it is currently trying to swear its member states behind closed doors and in the utmost secrecy. An earlier draft stipulated that any changes to the text must be made “with full respect for the dignity, human rights, and freedom of the person.” This passage has since been deleted.
The fundamental rights, of course, continue to apply, just differently.
Don’t worry, UN Secretary-General António Guterres is trying to reassure us – of course, he still feels committed to fundamental freedoms:
Fine. And how does the UN intend to “protect” the fundamental human right to information? By restricting freedom of expression and depriving us of any information that the censors don’t like. It’s about absolute control over the narrative – especially with regard to health and illness, prevention and therapy, medication and vaccinations, as the planned pandemic treaty stipulates. “Fundamental rights continue to apply, just differently,” Stefan Harbarth, President of the Federal Constitutional Court by Merkel’s grace, would probably comment: “A restriction of civil liberties can be legitimate.”
It is extremely convenient for the UN that no one knows exactly what constitutes “disinformation.” She herself states:
“There is no one-size-fits-all definition of disinformation. Given the many and varied contexts in which disinformation plays a role, such as elections, healthcare, armed conflict, or climate change, a definition alone is not sufficient.”
This shortcoming comes in handy because the opinion controllers can invent their own definitions and apply them as they wish. And, of course, this will be for our good. Who can object to being spared lies and hatred?
The UN Secretary-General reaches the height of hypocrisy when he tries to use the corona crisis to prove how urgently censorship is needed: “The COVID-19 pandemic has (…) highlighted the dark side of digital technology: the lightning-fast spread of Misinformation, the manipulation of people’s behavior and much more.” The UN itself, the WHO, governments, and health authorities have contributed significantly to this “darkness” with a manipulative flood of misinformation about the origin and danger of SARS-CoV-2 virus, the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations, the benefits of other government “protective” measures, the significance of PCR diagnostics, the value of alternative prevention and treatment. This disinformation from above has cost the lives of millions of “jabbed.”
The EU Commission is leading the way in the crusade against fake news – so far, no constitutional court has stopped it. The Digital Services Act (DAS), which gags all major social networks, has been in effect in all EU member states since August 25, 2023. Anyone who does not immediately delete “hateful content” and “serious dangers” faces horrendous fines, if not outright shutdown.
“So that people get along better with each other.”
Artificial intelligence should make censorship comprehensive and seamless. This will promote unity in society, strengthen global friendship, help overcome geopolitical polarization, and help “people get along better with each other,” enthused WHO main sponsor Bill Gates in a studio conversation with Sam Altman broadcast on January 11, 2024—the managing director of the “ChatGPT” developer OpenAI. Truly ingenious: Where two opinions are no longer permissible, there can no longer be any arguments about them.
Gates has long been making his peacemaking contribution to this essential aspect of the Great Reset. In order to combat “disinformation” more effectively worldwide, he forged an alliance of large media and tech companies. Microsoft, Adobe, Intel, and Sony are participating, as is the BBC. Publicis is also there, one of the worst propaganda monsters on our planet, with annual sales of over ten billion dollars, to which major customers from the pharmaceutical industry contribute. Gates’ Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) is intended to create the technical conditions to clean the Internet of fake news and “conspiracy theories” – comprehensively and once and for all. No lateral thinker will escape this perfected censorship. (2)
We may then no longer even hear about initiatives like the Westminster Declaration, in which 137 personalities from science, culture, and the media recently expressed “deep concern about increasing censorship” – such lateral thinking ultimately contributes to the “delegitimization of censors relevant to the protection of the constitution.”
(Harald Wiesendanger)
Remarks
1 For more information: https://netzpolitik.org/2023/kampf-gegen-desinformation-unesco-veroeffentlicht-leitlinien-zur-regulierung-sozialer-plattformen/ and https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/de/home/das-bakom/medieninformationen/bakom-infomailing/infomailing-60/regulierung-von-online-plattforme.html
2 Further information in the KLARTEXT “This stuff has to go”.
Cover photo: NoName_13/Pixabay