By Neenah Payne
Tucker Carlson’s email on January 24 said: “Whatever happened to the truckers who dared to protest Justin Trudeau? Some of them are still in jail, years later. Trucker Gord Magill explains how darkness has descended on Canada.”
This week, Tucker traveled across our northern border to bring a message of freedom to Canadians being oppressed by Justin Trudeau’s authoritarian regime. This liberation campaign, joined by Jordan Peterson, Conrad Black, and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, spanned from Calgary to Edmonton, and you can watch both events by clicking below.
Tucker Carlson’s Trip To Liberate Canada
As Carlson toured Canada, he spoke to massive audiences and explained that he is part Canadian because his father’s people were from Canada. He encouraged Canadians to stand up now and fight back against the growing tyranny.
The Calgary Stop (video) 1/25/24
The audience was HUGE!
Jordan Peterson tells Tucker:
I think with the technology that’s in front of us, which is transforming at a rate that’s beyond comprehensible, literally, that we could do much better in the next fifty years than we did in the last two hundred. And that’s really saying something.
From Tucker’s speech:
It doesn’t matter who’s in the Prime Minister’s office, your rights remain the same because you were born with them, because you are not a slave, you’re a human being and you have inherent dignity because God made you.
Canada’s Petition to Exit the UN and WHO
Justin Peterson Discusses Threats To His License
Dr Jordan B Peterson and his daughter Mikhaila explain the current situation with the College of Psychologists of Ontario. They have presented Dr Peterson with an ultimatum: take part in re-education courses aiming to correct his “wrongthink,” or lose his clinical psychology license. Here is the promised documentation for the current charges and justification for the sentence already handed down by the College of Psychologists: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12XBZ…
Mikhaila Peterson is a CEO and the host of “The Mikhaila Peterson Podcast.” As well as interviews, she hosts a series called Opposing Views, where she speaks to people with differing opinions on contentious issues to let listeners make up their own minds. She’s used a diet called the Lion Diet to heal from autoimmune and mood disorders and has educated people on that diet via TEDx and Oxford Union speeches. Mikhaila is also the founder of the upcoming online education platform Peterson Academy, an online education place devoid of ideology, launching in 2023.
Freedom Is Gone In Canada
Sun political columnist Brian Lilley in an exclusive interview with clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson. Dr. Peterson talks about the lack of freedom in Canada, his future, and whether he will go ahead with remedial social media training.
Robert Kennedy Jr.’s email on 1/24/24 included the video below.
With your help, I am going to take on the censorship regime in America today.
RFK Jr. On Censorship of Jordan Peterson
Our outrage that the Canadian Supreme Court would force psychiatrist Jordan Peterson to undergo “social media training” for “demeaning posts”—or lose his medical license—did not go unnoticed. Even the popular Dr. Peterson himself thanked our campaign for highlighting his plight on his X account (formerly known as Twitter).
The fact is, we live in a country that was built upon the principles of freedom—spelled out in our Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments of our Constitution. The First Amendment says in no uncertain terms: Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech.” And while Canada does not share our Constitution, they have long held to the principles found therein. Several media outlets were as shocked as we were that someone like Dr. Peterson could be forced to undergo training or lose his job.
The article noted:
A U.S. presidential candidate and a U.S. congressman have condemned recent Canadian court rulings that allow the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) to require Jordan Peterson to undergo social media training in order to keep his professional license.
Dr. Peterson, in a Jan. 20 post on X, shared a letter sent by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s office to a recipient named “Norman” that noted similarities between Dr. Peterson’s case and Mr. Kennedy’s campaign, which the letter said is “currently facing mainstream media censorship.”
“The breaking news that a Canadian Court is forcing psychiatrist Jordan Peterson to undergo state-sanctioned media training because of ‘demeaning’ social media posts is an assault to the fundamental tenets of Democracy and Freedom,” said the letter, emailed to Mr. Kennedy’s campaign supporters on Jan. 20, as confirmed by his press secretary, Stefanie Spear.
Mr. Kennedy, a former Democrat, had initially challenged U.S. President Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination. In October 2023, he announced he would run for president as an independent instead. The letter, which seeks additional support for his campaign, condemns authoritarianism while making reference to Dr. Peterson’s case.
“That a Canadian court would force anyone to submit to their speech codes or else lose his or her ability to earn a living more resembles Communist-led China, not a free nation,” it said. “Authoritarianism was tried by many nations in the 20th century, and it failed every single time because people of the free world opposed those regimes that sought to terminate fundamental human rights.”
Our nation has led the free nations of the world in protecting and promoting human rights. The United States has long served as a light for the world to emulate, and we have a long standing agreement with our Canadian friends on this critical issue. Yet in today’s age, there are many—even in our own country—who are calling for more and more censorship.
According to one recent poll in which respondents were asked if they agree or disagree with the statement “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, only 31% of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” and only 34% of Independents agreed with the sentiment. For the record, our campaign believes in the basic and universal right to speech without qualification. As a people, we need to be able to disagree with one another and offer differing viewpoints without fear of retribution.
YouTube Removed Jordan Peterson/RFK Jr. Podcast
The videos below explain that YouTube removed the 95-minute June 5, 2023 interview between Jordan Peterson and RFK Jr. without giving a reason. However, the podcast has had 4.3 million views!
This is a clip from our show SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET on Rumble. You can watch the full episode for FREE here: https://rumble.com/v2z946a-system-upd…
Should YouTube Remove Interviews?
Deplatforming public figures is no win for discourse. 6/26/23
Psychologist Jordan B. Peterson (left) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (right) speak during an interview that YouTube removed from Peterson’s channel.
On June 18, psychologist and political commentator Jordan Peterson and 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tweeted that YouTube removed an hour-and-a-half long conversation between them from Peterson’s channel.
Offering no explanation at the time of the takedown, a YouTube spokesperson claimed the next day the platform removed the video because it violated YouTube’s vaccine misinformation policy. The source told CNN that YouTube “does not allow ‘content that alleges that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities.’”
As a private company, YouTube is allowed to do this. Rightfully, those who manage the platform have no legal obligation to allow any particular content to remain there. And notably, YouTube doesn’t even pay lip service to free speech in its policy commitments.
However, the conversation shouldn’t end there. Just because censorial action is lawful doesn’t necessarily mean it’s productive for public discourse. YouTube itself claims to have “a responsibility to support an informed citizenry and foster healthy political discourse.” But the way it conceives of carrying out this responsibility leaves a lot to be desired.
A subsection of the platform’s “Supporting Political Integrity” webpage states:
[W]e remove policy-violative content, raise authoritative news sources, reduce the spread of election-related misinformation, and provide a range of resources for civics partners such as government officials, candidates, civics organizations, and political Creators to ensure a broad range of voices are heard. But can supporting “an informed citizenry,” fostering “healthy political discourse,” and ensuring “a broad range of voices are heard” be squared with disallowing any perspective that differs from that of “health authorities”? A “healthy political discourse,” as YouTube acknowledges, means ensuring “a broad range of voices are heard.” If a political candidate generating the support of more than 15% of Democrats, with a higher favorability rating than either major party’s presumptive nominee, falls outside the acceptable range of voices that can be heard, YouTube’s conception of “broad” seems conspicuously narrow.
Especially given that Kennedy is a major public figure, the public would be well served to have the opportunity to confront his claims concerning vaccines and other subjects. This contributes to fostering an “informed citizenry.” But YouTube doesn’t give audiences that chance. Instead, it infantilizes viewers, treating them as if they’re incapable of hearing a given perspective without instantly onboarding it.
Fortunately, YouTube is not the sole arbiter of media content. Anyone interested may still watch the interview on Twitter or listen to it on podcast platforms. And, apparently, many are interested: Peterson’s and Kennedy’s tweets linking to the video have each garnered 4.2 million views and 4.6 million views, respectively.
This casts doubt on whether YouTube’s decision to remove the interview is even strategically effective if it truly hopes to dissuade people from encountering “harmful” views.
Kennedy’s detractors often describe him as a conspiracy theorist, and YouTube’s policy states that it aims to combat “harmful conspiracy theories.” If this goal contributed to the platform removing the video, the action was particularly ill-conceived. Conspiracy theories often rest on notions of the existence of cabals of well-connected conspirators, wielding institutional power to stop average people from recognizing “the truth.”
YouTube should critically consider whether a person prone to conspiratorial thinking would be more or less likely to believe a given theory after witnessing a powerful corporation censor someone who expresses it.
In less extreme terms, viewpoint-based censorship necessarily places a thumb on the scale for some viewpoints and against others. Even if it’s removed, we shouldn’t be surprised if the weight swings back in the direction of the speech that was suppressed. And we shouldn’t underestimate the power of the “Streisand effect,” peoples’ reactive desire to seek out information they’re not “supposed” to see.
So, where does that leave us? How can we reliably identify misleading and deceptive information so as not to place our trust in it? Ironically, some of the answers YouTube itself provides on its “Media Literacy” page aren’t half bad: “[W]e encourage you to ask yourself some questions before you believe everything you see online,” says YouTuber Coyote Peterson in a clip representing the platform. “Like, ‘Why was this video made?’, and, ‘Who made it?’, And ‘How do I know the information is true?’ ‘Where else can I check to make sure it’s right?’” “Remember,” he says, “you can always play detective and check more than one source.”
Instead of playing content cop, YouTube should give its viewerbase the chance to heed the platform’s own advice. Otherwise, it’s setting the precedent that it, not they, knows best what’s true and what’s false, what’s harmful and what’s helpful — undermining its own assertion that we each should take it upon ourselves to examine media with a critical eye.
Glenn Greenwald: The Veil of Freedom
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with author, journalist, and political commentator Glenn Greenwald. They discuss the war on information: how social moralism, religious rhetoric, conceptual safety, and false compassion have been used and propagandized to reshape the western world into a good versus bad, red versus blue polarity. They also explore the human need for meta narratives, the basis of morality, and the case for God in a world that offers nihilism.
Glenn Greenwald is a journalist, author, and former constitutional law attorney. His original hit blog was a springboard into writing for Salon and the Guardian with a focus on national security issues. In 2013, he published the now iconic Snowden documents detailing global government surveillance by the U.S. and British governments.
In 2019, Greenwald again broke leaked documents, this time for “Operation Car Wash,” which shone a spotlight on the corruption of the Brazilian judicial system. He would later detail his work in a series of books such as Securing Democracy: My Fight for Press Freedom and Justice in Brazil and No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State.
See the trailer on the Citizenfour Film website.
“What good is the right for free speech if it’s not protected?”
“What we used to call liberty and freedom, people now call “privacy”. In the same breath, we say privacy is dead!”
William Binney testifying in the German NSA inquiry: “I see this as the most major threat to democracies all around the world”.
Censorship: First Sign of Dictatorship
Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger is a former member of The Research Ethics Review Committee at the World Health Organization. She explained that authorities were lying and the world’s media was being paid to report what Big Pharma wanted. She warns that censorship is the first sign of dictatorship.
For More Information
Neenah Payne writes for Activist Post
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.