The Right to Think for Yourself

Aug 5

Written By Dr.s Jill and Robert W. Malone

Consequences of State Control of the Overton Window

By means of ever more effective methods of mind manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms… elections, parliaments, supreme courts and all the rest… will remain.

The underlying substance will be a new kind of Totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly like they were in the good old days. Democracy & freedom will be the theme of every broadcast & editorial. Meanwhile, the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite will quietly run the show as they see fit.

Aldous Huxley, 1962

Our minds and our speech are what make us uniquely human. Our ability to conceive and communicate our personal view of the world around us is a central aspect of ourselves and of our person. To compromise or limit the ability of an individual to exercise freedom of thought and speech is to make that individual less human. This type of activity is not only intrinsically oppressive and fundamentally damaging to the human soul, it is a form of theft. Those who seek to limit thought and speech without permission to do so are stealing something of value from those whom they oppress. In so doing, they make the oppressed less human. They are literally stealing a fundamental asset of the individual without consent.

In “The Anatomy of the State”, Murray Rothbard argues that there are two means of producing wealth:

Economic Means refer to producing and exchanging goods, services, and value through voluntary human effort, creativity, and entrepreneurship. They are additive and generate wealth for all parties involved. Note the keyword “voluntary,” which implies a lack of coercion, enticement, compulsion, and reliance on informed free will.

Political Means refers to using force or coercion to seize wealth from others. Political means are reductive, distorting incentives and undermining long-term prosperity. For example, taxation is a form of theft in which political means are used to seize wealth from others.

The censorship-industrial complex, in collusion with corporate media, works hand in glove with the State to use political means to seize involuntarily your ability to think and speak your own mind. The censorship-industrial complex, their media partners, as well as those companies that practice Surveillance Capitalism, are stealing value from you without your permission in order to enrich themselves at your expense.

Corporate media plays a key role in this State-sponsored business activity. To illustrate with one specific example documented in our upcoming book “PsyWar”, committee investigations in the House of Representatives have documented that the State acted through its Department of Homeland Security (CISA) to identify and flag American citizens (including myself) for censorship and defamation during the COVIDcrisis. In the case of my example, a variety of colluding corporate media outlets acting via “advocacy journalists” then proceeded to support the State by publishing “smear” and “wrap up smear” articles designed to damage my reputation and thereby delegitimize my criticism of dishonest propaganda being promoted by the State concerning “safe and effective” COVID vaccines.

These articles typically included the specific logic and phrases employed by DHS/CISA in its documentation targeting me. Once again, this is theft- intentional theft of reputation. In this case, the State, in collusion with its media surrogates, acted to intentionally and maliciously take something of value from me without my permission. Something that I had developed over years of labor- my professional reputation- and in an arbitrary and capricious manner, without any due process, sought to remove that value from myself and my business. Furthermore, in the Supreme Court decision known as “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254, 1964)”, the Judicial branch of the State has determined that this type of intentionally targeted damaging of individual reputation on behalf of the State is permitted for corporate media. Since Sullivan, this method of intentional theft of the good reputation of citizens to support the political interests of the State and conversion of targeted reputation damage to yield profit for corporate media has become a standard component of the business activities of the corporate media, which colludes with the State to advance its interests.

Surveillance capitalism is a novel economic system that emerged in the digital era, characterized by the unilateral claiming of private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. In this version of capitalism, the prediction and influencing of behavior (political and economic) rather than production of goods and services is the primary product. This economic logic prioritizes the extraction, processing, and trading of personal data to predict and influence human behavior by exploit those predictions for a variety of economic (marketing) and political objectives.

Malone and Malone (2024), PsyWar Enforcing the New World Order

The bedrock of medical ethics is the thesis that humans have a fundamental right to self-determination and that this must be respected above all else. In other words, in their transactions with patients, physicians and other medical practitioners are limited to providing information, advising, and treating if requested. However, the decision about whether to accept or reject that advice and, by extension, to accept or reject a medical procedure is widely agreed to be a fundamental human right of each individual patient. This is considered a personal right, not to be discarded in the interests of the collective.

One key aspect of the post-WWII Nuremberg trials was the “Doctor’s Trial,” which gave rise to the Nuremberg Code, which became the basis for developing modern Western medical ethics. In Nazi Germany, German physicians planned and enacted the Euthanasia Program, the systematic killing of those they deemed "unworthy of life." The victims included the institutionalized mentally ill and physically impaired. Further, during World War II, German physicians conducted pseudoscientific medical experiments utilizing thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent. Most died or were permanently impaired as a result. Jews, Poles, Russians, and Roma (Gypsies) were the most common victims of experimentation. In most cases, these “experiments” were internally rationalized (“justified”) based on the need to advance the common good, for example, by developing research data concerning the ability of human beings to tolerate cold. Cold tolerance research was considered essential to the German war effort and the German State due to German military activities on the Western and Northern fronts.

To any who have been awake and paying attention to the deployment of propaganda, censorship, coercion, enticement, and compulsion (vaccine mandates) during the COVIDcrisis, the parallels are chilling. During the COVIDcrisis, the State made the argument that these activities were justified based on the common good, the often-repeated (false) thesis being that infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus was highly lethal (3+% case fatality rate) and that the permitted “vaccines” were safe and effective in preventing infection, disease, and death from this virus. All of this logic has now been proven to have been deeply flawed and, in many cases, based on fraudulent information. Temporarily granting the benefit of the doubt to the State, this falsehood and fraud may have been plausible early in 2020, but as time went by, the lies were rapidly refuted. Yet, the State persisted in its false claims and deployed a wide range of advanced methods to censor those speaking the truth and to manipulate and control the minds of its citizens in an effort to sustain its legitimacy when imposing its counterproductive COVID-19 “public health” policies. Policies which included coerced, compelled, enticed, and in some cases violently forced receipt of experimental “vaccine” products.

As if that was not enough, during the COVIDcrisis the judicial/court systems of the Western nations legitimized and supported the right of the State to violate the Nuremberg Code on the basis that the rights of the commons to be protected from SARS-CoV-2 infection supersede the rights of the individual to maintain personal autonomy and control their own bodily integrity. And with that, the State embarked on a massive, globalized campaign to forcibly control thought and speech using every means at its disposal, all under the false pretense that this would advance “public health.” The courts, acting to legitimize and support the State, repeatedly supported the rights of the collective to use force to impose a medical product that was neither medically safe nor effective (in achieving the claimed and emergency use authorized intended purpose) on individuals. The Judiciary and courts also supported the rights of the collective to impose restrictions on fundamental constitutionally guaranteed individual rights to congregate, practice religion, engage in business activities, and both think and speak about data and ideas contradicting State-approved information and public health actions.

This example illustrates another key concept that Rothbard develops in “The Anatomy of the State.” The primary role and purpose of the Judiciary is to support and legitimize the State, not to defend freedom or promote justice. In the case of the “Sullivan” decision, the Judiciary has acted to enable the State’s “Mockingbird media” surrogates to routinely deploy targeted defamation and ridicule of those engaged in political speech and actions as a component of their business model in supporting the interests and agendas of the State and its intelligence services.

With these actions, the Courts and Judiciary have established precedent and conferred legitimacy on the right of the State to steal from its citizens a key aspect of what makes them human: the ability to think and to speak one’s thoughts to others. They have established and legitimized the rights of the State to control the range of acceptable discourse, including the right of the State to control the Overton Window.

The Overton Window is a model for understanding how ideas in society change over time and influence politics. The core concept is that politicians are limited in what policy ideas they can support — they generally only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window. Other policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing popular support if they champion them. These policies lie outside the Overton Window.

In theory, in a representative republic such as the United States, the State is managed by elected representatives who represent the will of the citizens. But when the State itself is permitted to control the “Overton Window” through censorship, propaganda, media surrogates, influence campaigns, sponsored crowd-stalking, and other advanced psychological warfare (PsyWar) methods, then the tail wags the dog. The State, its affiliates and surrogates (corporate media, intelligence community cutouts, organized on-line crowd-stalking groups, military and Department of Homeland Security-associated psychological warfare units) act to only allow a narrow band of policy options from which political representatives can select. The logical outcome is that all political discourse - and any novel ideas or innovations - become subject to the interest and control of the State and those operatives who have accumulated sufficient power and influence to control the actions of the State. Common language describing these relationships includes the terms “Uniparty” and “Deep State”.

All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions.
All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions and executed by supplanting existing institutions.
Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.
-George Bernard Shaw

Modern psychological warfare (PsyWar) technology, particularly when combined with growing individual reliance on internet-based communications rather than human-to-human interactions, compounded by forward-looking Surveillance Capitalism capabilities, provides the State with advanced abilities to control all information that an individual encounters and, by extension, constrains the ability of that individual to independently think, feel, share and act on individual thoughts and speech.

The long-term consequences of these policies will be growing social and entrepreneurial stagnation, decreased ability to respond to external and internal threats and crises, social unrest, and long-term economic damage. The well-known consequences of the State using political means to steal wealth from others to advance and sustain its own activities and objectives. Returning back to Rothbard:

Political Means refers to using force or coercion to seize wealth from others. Political means are reductive, distorting incentives and undermining long-term prosperity.

Unfortunately for the State and its surrogates, the COVIDcrisis has expanded the “Overton Window” for many. Those willing to look are now able to see through this expanded window to become more aware of how aggressively and, at times, violently the State has acted to prevent distribution of information and new ideas that threaten its current consensus, operations, plans and privileges. These State actions diminish each of us by stealing, without consent, both our rights and fundamental aspects of our individuality.

In yet another hidden form of taxation, State-sponsored PsyWar steals a part of our soul and, in this way, impoverishes each and every one of us. We must recognize the violence to our minds that is inherent in these acts and insist that the State cease and desist in its ongoing theft of our natural, God-given rights to learn, think, and speak as we see fit.

We want freedom, Damnit.

In related news that supports the above thesis, in recent recorded comments, Dr. Peter Hotez has disclosed his collusion with the Biden Administration, the Director General of the World Health Organization, and others to advocate that the State employ violent means to impose medical procedures on individuals who do not consent to those procedures. With this statement, Dr. Hotez is specifically advocating that NATO military forces and the US Department of Homeland Security domestic intelligence capabilities be deployed to forcefully vaccinate non-consenting individuals.

Following is a direct quote from and supporting video evidence of Dr. Peter Hotez advocating the deployment of the US Department of Homeland Security, the Commerce Department (ergo debanking), the Justice Department (legal action) and NATO (military action) to fight what he terms “anti-vaccine aggression” and “anti-science aggression.”

"I've said to the Biden administration: "The health sector can't solve this on its own, we're going to have to bring in Homeland Security, Commerce Department, Justice Department to help us understand how to do this". I met with doctor Tedros last month in Geneva, WHO the director general to say: "I don't know that the World Health Organization can solve this on our own. We need the other United Nations Agencies, NATO." This is a security problem because it's no longer a theoretical construct or some arcane academic exercise. 200,000 Americans died because of anti-vaccine aggression, anti-science aggression. And so this is now a lethal force. And now I feel as a pediatric vaccine scientist, just as it's important for me to make new vaccines to save lives, the other side of saving lives is countering this anti-vaccine aggression."

In terms of medical ethics, I cannot imagine advocating anything more aggressive than using an internal US intelligence agency and foreign troops to vaccinate citizens against their will forcefully. In a rational world, this statement would be considered grounds for removing Dr. Hotez from his position at Baylor University College of Medicine.

Hotez is dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor University College of Medicine and director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, one of the sponsors of the symposium, which was organized by the Colombian Pediatric Society.

Dr. Hotez’s assertion that “200,000 Americans died because of anti-vaccine aggression, anti-science aggression” is unsupported propaganda which he continually repeats but which has been repeatedly debunked.

Additional coverage and details of this outrageous statement by Dr. Hotez can be found here.

When will MSM begin to appropriately criticize and even demand the resignation of Dr. Hotez for this gross breach of medical ethics?

When will the WHO, Baylor University College of Medicine and the US government take the necessary action to remove Dr. Hotez from key leadership positions?

Hotez clearly has multiple conflicts of interest involving the vaccine industry, and his public statements have become irrational and completely disconnected from established medical ethics norms. It is long past time for him to go.