Understanding who the clients of traditional social media really are help to frame why rampant censorship exists there!

Traditional social media's “clients” seem to have more faith in International Law and the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Codes than we do, we of the liberally educated West. Is that why censorship runs rampant?

Social media is free for its “members” but, much like the TV stations of the days of yore, the days of Joe McCarthy and Leave It to Beaver, which also broadcast for free, social media is funded by advertisers – perhaps including Pfizer and Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca? The broadcast TV stations back when I was a kid got into hot water with their advertisers for coming to close to violating the Decency Code. When Edward R. Murrow of CBS dared to use his weekly broadcast to denounce Senator Joe McCarthy in 1954 all his advertisers pulled their funding. But the producers of CBS News stuck by Murrow. He was far too prominent and beloved a news man to be banned, unlike the many writers and reporters and actors and artists that Joe McCarthy ruined and drove to suicide using false and true accusations of communism.

And like the TV stations of that day, in my opinion, all the social media platforms are also influenced by, or even overseen by, the CIA. So what they choose to ban is a good indication of “classified”, excluded territory, the virtual equivalent of Area 51, if you will. By noting what is forbidden you can trace a silhouette of the forbidden truth and thus identify it more and more accurately. And you can identify the custodian of the forbidden truth as well.

What else do the shadowy “clients” not want us to talk about amongst ourselves, much less broadcast to the general membership? Let’s see… the 1949 Geneva Convention IV seems to be a third rail issue. The code named after the forbidden German city where the Nazis were tried for crimes against humanity also seems to be something we’d all better keep behind our paper masks; this code makes it illegal to perform medical experiments on anybody without their consent.

Ha! Balderdash! Pish-tosh bah! Fiddlesticks and Horse feathers say all the college educated liberals whenever the subject of law comes up. Law is nothing but power to the Government and oppression to We the People. Doesn’t mean a dratted thing, they say. Even as they denounce the Government for lawlessness they promote lawlessness, almost as if they’ve been educated (or brainwashed) by the CIA and they don’t even know it.

The shadowy clients of traditional socials seem to have faith in the law. If not why are they trying to destroy it?

Why is the Geneva Convention such a problem for these unnameable and yet powerful “clients”? Is it because under Article 32 of the Geneva Convention “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are illegal?

Now that I think of it, "clients" would also make it a crime to experiment on children (surely they are “ protected persons”) by giving them puberty blocking and sex changing hormones and even surgery without their parents consent.

These procedures are experimental because for the first time they are being done on a mass scale in very recent years as indicated by the recent proliferation of sex-change clinics in the UK, US and Canada indicates; the long-term consequences to these children are unknown, though the small numbers of people who have undergone sex changes before 2010 should be a source of data.

Sex changing children is touted as “medical treatments” because if they are not so definable they would be illegal. Our Canadian courts are making them legal by precedent. And the medical establishment and the media establishment and the education establishment are normalizing sex changes and “gender fluidity” even in children of 6 and 8. They are virtually soliciting subjects, underage subjects, for this mass experiment. The courts of this country are participating in the destruction of the law.

Is destroying the law, and not the jabs or the Covid or the sex changes, the real experiment?