Sunday, March 23, 2014

PC Tyranny and Speech about Health Freedom



"Political Correctness" - PC - is the statist dogma that certain speech, and speakers, may be proscribed by political authority whenever the speech is deemed "hurtful" to some specified group "protected" by the  dominant political power. 

In practice, this means at the whim of bureaucrats in govt, NGOs and crony corporations who have access to power. 

This is the antithesis of each individual's fundamental human right to Freedom of Expressive Association, and also, by the way, to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, for those under its protective jurisdiction. Even when couched in academic terms and practiced in the protected environment of the crony universities and institutions, this control ultimately rests on the coercive power of the state, even if initiated by supposed non-state actors.

In the past few days a major media outlet, the Wall Street Journal [1] broke the story that YouTube has now established "Super Flag" users who can expedite the removal of "offending" videos... "Down the memory hole..." as they said in the distopian novel 1984 (and just a few decades late in coming) 

But of course, nothing to worry about, say the UK censors: "British officials say they use the program to refer videos to YouTube that they believe have violated the U.K.’s Terrorism Act. ... More than 90% of the videos identified by super flaggers are either removed for violating guidelines, or restricted as not appropriate for younger users..."

In the few days since the exposure of this control system we have seen increasing reports of videos posted by critics of this govt or that govt disappearing, without any opportunity to rebut the often absurd "terrorist" connection.

In recent months we have noticed an increasing attempt by crony corporatists and their journalist or academic toddies to extend the evil notion of PC speech control to issues of Health Freedom.

Even in so believed-to-be stalwart defenders of speech as Reason Magazine [2] and The Guardian Newspaper [3] , statements have appeared calling for banning "vaccine deniers" oe "vaccine refusers" or "anti-vax" ideas from posting rebuttals to pro-vaccination assertions from the cronies.

Speech about Health Freedom is under threat.

Of course principled defenders of free inquiry and expression continue to make the case, with passionate persuasiveness, as in this from JD Tuccille:
Let's allow that they do—and that a majority of scientists agree about man-made climate change and a host of other issues. Just when does the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition meet to decide what is still subject to debate, and what is now holy writ? And is an effort to "undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus" always criminally negligent? Can it ever be simple scientific inquiry? Or even heroic? [4]
The history of PC Medicine, the official govt licensed and approved method for talking about and doing something about disease, is repeatedly pocked with examples of how very wrong govt medicine has been over the centuries. 

Without going back as far as the Herbalists' Charter of Rights [5] just look at the modern era.

Start with the Doctor in Vienna who was hounded from the profession for daring to suggest to his fellow physicians that they wash their hands... and many thousands of mothers and babies died over the following generation until hygienic practices slowed the spread of infectious diseases.[6]

Consider that somewhere around 50,000,000 Americans died of heart conditions between the time the world first learned of the relationship between Vitamin E and heart health [7] and when the medical profession, just recently, began to accept that this food is essential to heart health.

How can health-conscious people world-wide protect their access to "second opinions" -- to dissenting views, that may, as in the case of vaccines and other Genome Disrupting products of crony corporatism (see the Five Big Lies, www.DrRimaTruthReports.com) just save your life and the lives of those for whom you care.

It's not just about speech: it is about life.


The answer to PC Tyranny
Is to Speak Out.
Take the Oath!


Your health keepers have to understand the issue and confront it not just to keep truth safe, but to keep YOU safe and, ultimately, themselves.

If they are afraid to speak the truth to you about what you need, and what you do not need, about what is effective and what is not, because of PC and professional censorship, they cannot deal frankly and openly with your health and practice their arts properly.

How can they keep you safe and protect your life?  By taking the Health Keepers' Oath, www.HealthKeepersOath.org, and adhering to it.

By fearlessly speaking truth both to power AND to patients!

And if your health keeper will not do so, get a new one!  The sooner we stand up to the PC concept bullies, the sooner they will back off and find some other pit of madness in which to flail about.

Those who seek to impose PC Tyranny on Speech about Health Freedom are, at best, misguided "useful idiots" for the global elite's market control agenda, or are, at worse, intellectual thugs willingly supporting that coercive intent.

--------------------

[1]  http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/17/youtube-enlists-trusted-flaggers-to-police-videos/
[2]  http://www.infowars.com/pseudo-libertarian-reason-magazine-calls-jenny-mccarthy-an-enemy-of-freedom-for-daring-to-question-vaccines/
[3]  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/16/anti-vaccination-activists-should-not-be-given-a-say-in-the-media
[4]  http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/17/prosecuting-people-for-saying-stuff-you
[5]  http://vitaminlawyerarchives.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-herbalists-charter-and-modern.html
[6] http://publichealth.artsci.wustl.edu/handwashing
[7] Time, June 10, 1946, The Shutes and Vitamin E

This blog was also posted here: 
http://www.livefreeblog.com/pc_tyranny_and_speech_about_health_freedom

1 comment:

Health Freedom of Choice Blog said...

Here is a great video about how PC terms like "check your [white/male] privilege" are used to stop discussion and prevent speech. Collectivist terms, since they only refer to legal fictions (such as "class" "race" "country" "corporation" etc.) do not actually communicate and are the opposite of meaningful speech.

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/video/video/show?id=4301673%3AVideo%3A2790335&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_video