Censorship and the Great Covid-19(84) Disinformation Campaign
Censorship is one of the most widely used tools of all tyrants, and the current tyranny being unleashed upo the global population is mandatory mask-wearing. The free flow of information is the foundation of a free society and key to discovery and preservation of truth, while censorship and suppression of information is the foundation of a tyrannical society built upon deception and steeped in ignorance.
Truth invites and indeed thrives under conditions where it criticized, questioned and openly debated; whereas the Big Lie fears more than anything else this very same scrutiny; for questions, criticism and debates will in a short time cause the deception to crumble and collapse under its own weight.
As put by Thomas Jefferson: “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
So it is no surprise that the practice of book burning is one of the oldest known methods used by tyrannical governments and religions alike to silence dissenters, critics, heretics, and anyone whose voices threatened their dogmas, creeds and indeed their entire power structures. Much like sacrifice and slavery, book burning has never truly disappeared, but has rather simply changed forms, with the mass removal of information from social media platforms and the internet in general being the modern day book burnings.
Book burning is only employed when dissenting voices become strong enough to sway the minds of the people and threaten the ruling power structure, and such can only occur when such voices are speaking from truth.
And so it is at this present moment during the so-called ‘pandemic’, that the entire global population is currently in the midst of one of the largest information wars this world has ever seen, with the global powers that shouldn’t be engaged in what is likely the largest and most well coordinated global disinformation campaign ever carried out in human history - attempting to indoctrinate the masses into the new global religion and its faith-based dogmas and creeds. And this is not without a struggle, for many people are waking up to the lies, standing up to the tyranny, and speaking out against blatant disinformation and hypocrisy.
One of the most common methods being deployed by the establishment in this information war is modern day book burning in the form of mass censorship from social media platforms of any content of any kind - opinions, voices, information, evidence, science, medical studies - that threatens the official covid narrative in any way, or challenges the precious dogmas of this new religion.
One of the best recent examples of this was the widespread censorship from all of the major social media platforms of the recent press conference held in Washington, D.C. by a group of doctors attempting to break the mainstream media disinformation campaign’s grip on the minds of the masses.
The message given by these doctors was varied but simple: ‘We are tired of the facts about coronavirus and our evidence-based opinions being suppressed.’
There is a known cure for ‘Covid19’, we are told - Hydroxychloriqine and zinc - so there is no need to fear, no need for mask wearing mandates and no need for people to keep dying (and by extension no need for the coming mandatory vaccine). One doctor noted that masks don’t protect the public from the virus anyway, likening their widespread use by the public for protection to the use of a chain link fence to keep out handfuls of sand being thrown in one’s direction. Some urged the immediate reopening of schools. All sharply criticized the corporate media disinformation campaign which suppresses a vast amount of factual information.
Instead of investigating the claims of this supposed cure as a true scientist or journalist would do, and then using the findings to either support or denounce the claim; this independently live-streamed press conference and all trending clips from it were instead immediately removed from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, while a host of corporate mainstream news outlets immediately jumped to denounce the claims as false without evidence and smear the doctors as conspiracy cooks and crazies. Employing the standard attack the messenger rather than the message tactic alongside wide-scale censorship through eradication of the information from all major social media platforms.
Hydroxychloriquine isn’t the only cure for this illness that has been announced, as an herbal remedy made in Madagascar and announced shortly after the onset of the ‘pandemic’, was also declared to be an effective cure, and was later used in Tanzania, whose President just a few days ago declared the country entirely free of ‘Covid19’.
These mainstream media tactics - of attacking the messenger instead of the message and declaring all evidence-based information and established science which challenges Big Pharma interests and the official narrative to be automatically false without any proof for their claims - are nothing new. This includes scientifically proven alternative medicines. I documented one prime glaring example of this at the onset of the ‘pandemic’, when the government and media waged a new war against medicinal silver, proven to kill coronaviruses.
Niether is the widespread censorship anything new, for it too has been ongoing from the very inception of the ‘pandemic’ at the beginning of the year, and thousands upon thousands of YouTube videos challenging the official coronavirus narrative and covid dogmas have been unilaterally removed - and sometimes entire channels taken down.
Just one small example of this modern-day book burning taking place across the YouTube platform is seen in my own experience, when I personally had about half of the videos I had uploaded over a month’s time removed all at once in just a matter of days!
I don’t think the internet has ever experienced such a massive, widespread, comprehensive social media censorship campaign as the world has been witnessing throughout the duration of this scamdemic.
And when outright censorship and removal of content fails to succeed or is deemed inappropriate, ‘fact-checking’ of such dissenting voices is the next method widely being deployed. There is a host of science- and fact-based research and claims which have been ‘fact-checked’ on Facebook and Instagram to inform the reader of the supposedly false nature of such content. The problem is that in a large number of such cases, the ‘facts’ being ‘checked’ aren’t actually being disproven at all, because they are true, but are rather simply deemed to be “outdated” and thus ‘irrelevant’ according to their logic.
One such example is the original CDC guideline which at first recommended healthy members of the public against wearing masks, now ‘fact-checked’ as “outdated.”
A much more recent example is the ‘fact-checking’ of Ben Swann’s claims that the available scientific evidence indicates masks aren’t effective to stop the transmission of viruses. Ben Swann was ‘fact-checked’ on Facebook for his video on this subject, embedded below:
Now it isn’t that this science is wrong, although some will go so far as to say Swann misrepresented the information, nor is it even that the evidence Ben Swann cited was incorrect, but once again the ‘fact-checkers’ simply deemed the information to be “outdated” and/or “misrepresented.”
Ben Swann’s response to this insane conclusion can be seen in the video below, in which he demonstrates that the most recent CDC medical study from just this May, came to the very same conclusions as all of the “outdated” ‘fact-checked’ studies - that there is no evidence for the efficacy of masks to stop transmission of viruses - thus nullifying the supposed “outdated” nature of the ‘fact-checked’ studies originally used for his argument.
Yet another facet of the establishment’s war on ‘outdated’ science, narrative-challenging information and general dissent, is a pressure campaign leveled against any reputable medical associations which have published studies and papers documenting the lack of evidence for mask efficacy. This campaign is aimed at pressuring these publishers and/or their authors to remove such content from their websites.
The reality of this pressure campaign is evidenced by a mid-July update to just such a paper made by the authors, entitled Commentary: Masks-for-all for Covid-19 not based on sound data, and published by CIDRAP (the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy of the University of Minnesota), in which it is revealed that: “The authors and CIDRAP have received requests in recent weeks to remove this article from the CIDRAP website.”
In this case, neither the authors nor the CIDRAP caved to this pressure. However, another well documented paper entitled - Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review by John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC, originally published on October 18, 2016, by the Oral Health Group, was suddenly removed by the publishers at the end of July, and the URL of the article was replaced with the message that: “If you are looking for [this article] it has been removed. The content is...no longer relevant in our current climate.”
More discussion on this and the full deleted article in its entirety can be seen in my latest post - Why Face Masks Don’t Work | Masks are Neither Effective Nor Safe According to the Science.
Clearly, the current environment being fostered by the establishment is not conducive to any evidence which challenges its covid narrative and faith-based dogma. This is the reality of the present situation the world now finds itself in, where censorship has gone wild, the media instantly jumps to baselessly attacks any opposition voices as false without evidence, where science is deemed outdated and irrelevant, and evidence is literally being wiped off the internet as science is being re-written to support the establishment narrative being sold to the public.
There are now also a number of emerging new studies which are being touted as evidence for the efficacy of masks and used as the proof that all previous science on the issue is truly outdated and irrelevant. And of course there is the associated media propaganda selling the public on the idea that all this new emerging evidence is trustworthy and definitive enough to base worldwide mask mandates upon.
In reality, much of this ‘new evidence’ is not actually from any new studies, but rather from new reviews of the very same corpus of existing studies which all previous such reviews already found were lacking in evidence of the efficacy of masks. So when new reviews of the same corpus of medical evidence suddenly claim to come to the opposite conclusion, we should be very suspicious of how the same evidence could possibly suddenly point to opposite conclusions after all of these years.
Propaganda Gone Wild: A Look at the ‘New Evidence for Masks’
One such propaganda piece pushing all this ‘new evidence for masks’ was recently published by VOX - entitled The growing scientific evidence for masks to fight Covid-19, explained by German Lopez.
“It’s true the evidence for masks was weak before. That’s changed.” - the subtitle reads - but is this really true, that the mask evidence has done a full 180?
The article starts off with the opening claim that:
Over the past couple of months, the world has received more evidence that face masks really can play a crucial role in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic.
Followed by the author then admitting that:
It’s a significant shift from earlier this year, when the evidence for mask-wearing was so weak that government authorities and public health experts publicly cast doubts on face coverings as a preventive measure against the coronavirus.
This evidence was previously so “weak” that most medical experts admitted it was practically nonexistent.
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.” - Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era, NEJM, April 1/May 21)
Despite this “weak” evidence and suggestions against the public wearing masks by health ‘authorities’ including the CDC, Dr. Fauci, and the Surgeon General himself who stated that “masks don’t protect the public from the virus,” these same authorities did a complete 180 on policy at the beginning of April.
Government officials and experts cited a “precautionary principle,” arguing that an unproven benefit was worth it since the potential harms and costs of mask-wearing are so low.
However, others doctors strongly disagree that the “potential harms” of mask-wearing were truly “so low,” such as Dr. Colleen Huber, who concluded her timely review on the science surrounding mask wearing by stating that: “...masks serve more as instruments of obstruction of normal breathing, rather than as effective barriers to pathogens. Therefore, masks should not be used by the general public, either by adults or children...”
In fact, several studies have demonstrated the negative health issues caused by use of face masks for extended periods of time, naturally due to the “unsafe” oxygen deprived levels (as per OSHA guidelines) created by the mask for the user.
Many others would disagree with the assessment that the costs of mask-wearing were so low, considering it has now begun to cost the majority of the western world’s population their basic freedom to exercise sovereignty over their own body - including the freedom to choose to freely breath oxygen without hindrance and subjection to “unsafe” oxygen-deprived conditions caused by the masks, the freedom not to wear a specific attire against their will, and the freedom to make their own medical choices without being coerced into following another’s medical advice against their own will.
But the current government/media message on this point is that the state owns your body, and therefore ‘my body, my choice’ only applies in regards to abortion when a mother is making the choice to end the life of an unborn baby, and does not apply to any other personal body choices which do not inflict violence upon others or their property.
Add to this that the mask mandates are simply a stepping stone to the coming mandatory vaccine(s), which has been one of the major goals of this plandemic from its very inception, and the cost just got raised a little higher.
The supposedly low cost then begins to skyrocket when you realize that it isn’t really that far of a jump from one single politician (governors, presidents) having the authority to mandate masks and vaccines upon an entire population - the latter of which are known to contain at least one deadly toxin (aluminum) - and some government body assuming the authority to decide when to euthanize ‘burdensome’ patients or other ‘undesirables’ of society. “But that’s called a death panel, and we’re not supposed to talk about that,” says our good pal Bill Gates, revealing that some have at least been thinking about it...
Back to the subject at hand, the “precautionary principle” when used to enforce state mandates of any kind on people against their will is absolutely asinine. But, the author of the VOX piece assures us: “Since then, scientists have done much more research on whether masks work, with new studies coming out over the past few months.”
And, furthermore, according to the author:
The research increasingly favors both individual mask-wearing and policies requiring universal masking. It suggests that masks not only help stop the spread of the coronavirus — by preventing the spread of virus-containing droplets that people spit out when they talk, sing, laugh, cough, sneeze, and so on — but that policies requiring masks work to significantly slow community transmission.
So the new research allegedly not only provides evidence of mask efficacy, but just so happens to favor the very mask policies already being implemented across the country and indeed the whole western world - mask mandates. Not only do these new studies then contradict the findings of one study published in early April, which found masks did not in fact prevent the spread of ‘Covid19’ in droplets from carriers, in all four patients tested in South Korea; but they conveniently support the pre-existing state mandates.
We should all be immediately wary of any new research coming out that specifically backs a previously implemented government policy. Any time that new science begins to come out universally supporting a new government policy, when the science begins to surface after the policies have already been implemented, there is naturally great cause for suspicion. After all, it isn’t unheard of for governments to fund ‘cooked’ studies that support pre-planned government policies, and the chances of this scenario are even more likely once the policies have been implemented. The more natural process far more likely to be free from such potential government pressure and meddling in the science would be for the government to rely upon the available science to form their policies or to wait for a scientific consensus to form before implementing such policies, not the other way around as happened in the case of mask mandates.
Ignoring this red flag, the article continues:
“The evidence on masks is getting better and better,” Ashish Jha, faculty director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told me. “None of it is bomb-proof evidence. It’s not a large randomized trial. But given that that’s unlikely to come … we’re now at a point where it’s really, very good evidence.”
And why is a large randomized trial - the scientific gold standard for such medical trials - “unlikely to come,” thus forcing the ‘authorities’ such as this one to conclude that given the circumstances, this less-than-bomb-proof evidence is actually “really, very good evidence”? Well, for one, Dr. Fauci recently argued that such a trial should not be undertaken due to the high risk posed to those participants who would have to go without masks, and because he trusts the current body of ‘evidence for masks’.
Never mind that there are most certainly an ample number of Americans already opposed to the wearing of masks who would be more than willing to undergo such a ‘risk’ as participants; the decision not to perform a proper, real life study based upon a large randomized trial, sure is mighty convenient for all those now instead relying on less-than-bomb-proof evidence as the best they’ll get. Maybe they are also forgetting that such large randomized trials have already repeatedly been carried out to test mask efficacy in regards to other viruses, and most of those studies found “no evidence” that masks reduce transmission of viruses.
And here lies the entire crux of the argument: Although it’s not bomb-proof evidence, and although it’s not evidence from a large randomized trial (which, by the way, is the scientific gold standard for medical studies such as these) - but nonetheless “it’s really, very good evidence,” the medical ‘authorities’ assure us. But is it “really,” in all actuality, “very good evidence”?
If you read between the lines of this fairly lengthy VOX piece, you get a pretty clear picture that’s quite a bit different than the one painted by the lines the author repeatedly draws your attention to. When you take all such individual admissions made by the author throughout the article, and put them all together, it “really” doesn’t seem like all these new studies produced “very good evidence.”
”None of it is bomb-proof evidence. It’s not a large randomized trial.” ... With masks, the evidence still isn’t totally definitive ... There are still gaps in the research ... The studies aren’t perfect. They’re...Prone to errors and corrections ... Many aren’t peer-reviewed ... The studies...might not have enough subjects for statistically significant findings — and they often can’t fully isolate the effect of masks versus other widely adopted actions against Covid-19. Some simply find correlations, but whether the associations are truly cause-and-effect is unclear ... More research is needed ... There have also been some deeply flawed studies. One study...that backed the use of masks has come under fire for allegedly shoddy methods. ... the evidence isn’t definitive ... The research also doesn’t yet provide conclusive evidence for how masks work.
But trust us, they say, and just mask up, because it’s “really, very good evidence.” The ‘experts’ agree, the ‘authorities’ agree, the media pundits and propagandists all agree; and if the evidence is good enough for them, it oughta be good enough for you and everyone else!
With masks, the evidence still isn’t totally definitive — science can be a very slow-moving process. But it’s increasingly pointing in one direction: During this pandemic, we all should wear a mask whenever we go out in public.
But all of this inconclusive, indefinite, imperfect, unclear, not-bomb-proof evidence doesn’t just all point in the direction of indicating “we should all wear a mask”, it even suggests all the current mask mandates already being implemented “could be effective.” What do you know...
Some research has gone further, indicating a mandate — not just a recommendation — for mask-wearing could be effective.
So let’s take a look at the specific studies cited here and see what claims they actually make regarding mask efficacy. The studies sourced by the CDC as evidence for their mask wearing recommendation for all, at least the ones which are available to view, are primarily based upon “research models,” as opposed to real-life studies. And as we should all know, models can be made to project whatever the creator of the model wants it to project. But what about the studies reviewed by VOX, are they any better?
A review of the evidence in The Lancet merely concluded that “face masks are associated with protection,” and even this association had “low certainty,” a fact conveniently omitted by the author. And yet association with protection does not necessarily equal actual protection, particularly when the certainty of this association is low.
Next up:
• A review of the research in International Journal of Nursing Studies found that “community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic.”
This review found that masks “could be beneficial,” which also means they “could not,” and is thus an entirely inconclusive hypothesis, not sound evidence. But far more revealing is the review’s own relevant findings entirely omitted by the author:
“Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective.”
Strange review to be citing as evidence for mask efficacy if you ask me! But the media propagandists know the overwhelming majority of the public will not read the studies for themselves and thus discover the author is willfully misleading its readers concerning the true nature of its findings (or is just to lazy to read the summary of the test results directly above the study’s conclusion).
And now we get to the studies which allegedly found evidence that mask mandates were effective, the actual ‘studies’ that are not mere reviews of previous studies.
The author writes that: “A study in Health Affairs found state mandates to wear masks helped reduce the spread of the coronavirus.” But the actual conclusion of the researchers was that: “as many as 230,000–450,000 cases may have been averted due to these mandates by May 22,” - “though they cautioned that this was merely an approximation,” the author was forced to add.
And again, if the study only found that a number of cases “may have been averted,” due to masks, it also means they “may not have been” due to masks. For as the study’s own conclusion points out: “These effects are observed conditional on other existing social distancing measures...”
And now we come to the one and only cited study that appears to actually have claimed to have found evidence of a correlation between mask-wearing and reduction in cases:
• A study from the nonprofit research institute IZA found that Germany’s local and regional mask mandates “reduced the cumulative number of registered Covid-19 cases between 2.3% and 13% over a period of 10 days after they became compulsory” and “the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 40%.”
But, since the above study was only looking at the number of “registered cases” and “reported infections” as opposed to actual cases and infections, its conclusions can’t possibly accurately reflect reality, when we know that the number of cases are based almost exclusively on highly inaccurate, scientifically meaningless PCR tests.
Another study, this one in BMJ Global Health, “found the use of masks in households in Beijing was associated with less spread of Covid-19.” Once again we have an association but no “bomb-proof evidence.” And also associated with less spread of the illness in the study but omitted by VOX were physical distancing and hand hygiene.
The author goes on to summarize another study:
A study from the CDC found that Navy service members on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, which experienced a large Covid-19 outbreak, were less likely to get infected if they reported using a mask.
But, the researchers of the study itself only concluded that: “Use of face coverings and other preventive measures could mitigate transmission.” Yet another study that found that mask use “could” help, but not evidence that they actually do help, and yet again this was only in conditions where masks were generally combined with physical distancing, isolation and the like.
Now compare the above reviews and observation-based studies with the very clear conclusions from studies that were actually based on multiple large randomized control trials, such as the CDC study, published in May, which unambiguously concluded that:
...evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. ... Evidence from RCTs of hand hygiene or face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza,...
And:
In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.
As to masks protecting the public and reducing the spread from carriers when worn by infected patients:
We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.
We can see the clear difference between the unambiguous conclusions made by the CDC in a review based upon numerous randomized control trials performed in various locations around the world and over a number of years, with the very indefinite conclusions of the observational studies all done very recently under a highly politicized environment.
And yet despite the admittedly inconclusive nature of every one of these new studies, and often ignoring the very findings of the studies themselves, the author nevertheless definitively states that:
Overall, the studies indicate that masks reduce the transmission of the coronavirus and other respiratory diseases by the general public.
What a misleading, outright false claim in light of the actual findings of the very studies cited as evidence for the claim!
Particularly: “Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective.”
Shockingly, the author then even goes on to write that: ”Cloth masks are effective for the general public, although surgical masks and respirators are likely better.” - How can something deemed less effective than ineffective in their own cited review be described as ‘effective’? Furthermore, peer-reviewed studies based upon randomized control trials actually find the exact opposite, that cloth masks “are not effective.”
“The findings of this study suggest that CM [cloth masks] are not effective, and that effectiveness deteriorates if used after washing and drying cycles and if used under stretched condition,” a medical study published by the NIH concluded.
While another NIH study found that use of cloth masks actually increased chance of infection by users, stating that: “The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm.” This study also found cloth masks to have penetration rates of a whopping 97%, making them quite obviously entirely ineffective, and even found medical masks to have a 44% penetration rate, meaning they only block 56% of viral particles, which also doesn’t sound very effective to me...
The author’s stance towards wearing masks despite the total lack of any definitive evidence of their efficacy is the same stance generally taken by all of the authority figures pushing mask-wearing on the public.
Raina MacIntyre, who heads the Biosecurity Research Program at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and has conducted many studies on masks, told me that “using the precautionary principle is warranted.”
In other words, the ‘experts’ agree that the “unproven benefit is worth it,” and because the ‘experts’ say this unproven evidence for mask wearing is actually “really, very good evidence,” then do what the experts say and wear a mask, because its “better to be safe than sorry.”
Even if the evidence isn’t definitive, there’s enough of it to suggest that it’s better to be safe than sorry and recommend the use of masks.
The problem with this reasoning is it doesn’t take individual human freedom into account, which, once relinquished in the name of safety, will likely never again be returned. But trust the experts, and be willing to quickly change according to their whims, and wait for that coming mandatory vaccine that’s sure to “vanquish” the virus which still hasn’t even been proven to exist.
Experts caution that this kind of situation is going to happen again and again with Covid-19. There’s simply going to be a lot of uncertainty with the coronavirus for some time, even after we’ve — hopefully — vanquished it with a vaccine.
...
Given how new this all is, experts say the public and its leaders need to be ready to act on changing evidence,...
And in case you were wondering, the author even thinks that “it’s unfortunate that the CDC and surgeon general worked against public mask use at first,” despite no available evidence at the time clearly pointing towards masks offering any protection whatsoever.
You see, according to this logic it is unfortunate when the authorities rely upon the available evidence to form their policies, and much better when they simply go along with the totalitarian agenda; and the sooner they do so, the better, even when the new evidence prompting such policy change is admittedly inconclusive, indefinite, imperfect, unclear, not-bomb-proof evidence, evidence that didn’t even exist until weeks after the policy was changed. And in reality, as we’ve seen, it’s evidence that still isn’t really there at all.
That’s the kind of model the author says everyone should be encouraged to follow...
...and [although] they arguably moved too slowly, it’s also good that they rigorously reviewed the research and embraced change once they felt there was enough evidence to do so. It’s the kind of model that everyone should be encouraged to follow.
I’m not sure how it is possible for them to have “rigorously reviewed the research and embraced change once they felt there was enough evidence to do so,” even before that evidence actually came into existence; but that’s just a minor flaw in the big scheme of things and shouldn’t get in the way of the agenda.
Conclusion
Don’t worry about minor inconsistencies or philisophical trifles; just be a good little slave, listen to the experts and obey the authorities, wear your mask, and get ready for the coming vaccine, for they will be mandating that as well. After all, mask mandates are most certainly being used to prepare the public to accept vaccine mandates, which are also most definitely on the way. See the recent Corbett Report below for a great detailed analysis on that - “Your Body, Their Choice”:
Meanwhile, there’s no need to question anything, just trust and obey: Slavery is freedom, masks keep you safe, the vaccine will save you, the state owns your body, Big Pharma cares about your health more than profit, and fear-based propaganda is very, very good for your health!
Welcome to Covid1984. I hope you’re enjoying the Orwellian ride, because the train is only just beginning to roll out of the station. If you don’t hop off soon, it’s gonna be one long and crazy tyrannical ride.
And for those out there willing to brave the insults and dirty looks and name-calling and death threats and all, don’t take the crazies calling you crazy too seriously. After all: “It’s no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” (J. Krishnamurti)
Among those who have become well adjusted to our increasingly sick society are those wishing death upon anyone who doesn’t blindly go along with the herd, such as peaceful Americans shopping without a mask on, which is beginning to happen in more than one isolated instance now...
And so we can see just how easily it could come to pass that, where they are currently ‘burning books’, they may soon be burning people, and the masses would surely even cheer. It can happen, even in America, and the path our society is on at this present moment is very quickly heading in that very dangerous, very tyrannical direction towards a 1984 nightmare so Orwellian in nature that even Orwell himself surely could have never seen coming.