A comprehensive and subtle geopolitical agenda
by Christine Stone
A recent letter sent to Front Porch Forum from the Chittenden County GOP in response to FPF’s request for $200,000 in donations inspired this article. The letter stated that Republican and conservative posts are being censored; therefore, “until FPF ceases its censorship of Republican and conservative posts we will not support the platform in any way and will encourage our members and conservatives state-wide to join us.”
The letter featured Republican Chair Wendy Wilton’s FPF account of being deactivated for “challenging FPF double standard of moderating and demeaning people who lean center-right, while favoring all liberal views like the way Twitter used to work.”
On reading, I had questions: Is there proof that Twitter censored Republicans and conservatives (the right) and why, is there a geopolitical driver, and is FPF intentionally censoring the right. This article attempts to answer these questions, bringing into light the coordinated global effort to censor and propagandize public opinion against the right under the guise of human rights.
Censorship & Twitter
Censorship of the right on Twitter and other platforms resulted from multiple United Nations (UN) partnerships. Some partnerships are detailed in the 2018 UN Report of the Special Rapporteur on “contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” These “contemporary forms of racism” are a new social contract defined by the UN based on human rights, not Constitutional and Civil Rights. The report called attendees of the Unite the Right rally on August 11, 2017, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists, who shared white nationalist revolutionary history. The report states that GoDaddy, Google and Airbnb removed white nationalist and neo-Nazis content from their services, and that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube banned individual users who threatened violence. The UN redefined protected speech as violence. For example, refusing to use a person’s preferred pronoun and not supporting Gender Affirming Care for minors are labeled as violence. While U.S. states that prohibit minors from receiving Gender Affirming Care are declared unsafe for the LGBTQ community.
In 2022, Twitter partnered with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to create Addressing conspiracy theories What teachers need, which built on UNESCO’s #thinkBeforeSharing social media campaign launched by Twitter in August 2020, with the European Union, and Jewish World Council. The document supports primary, secondary, and higher education learners, and states that conspiracy theorists promote misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and fake news. These terms served to propagandize distrust of all narratives that ran contrary to the UN in lieu of censorship.
Elon Musk stated that prior to purchasing Twitter. It was an “Information Weapon Harnessed by the Far Left.” The Guardian published an article in 2022, UN urges Elon Musk to ensure Twitter respects human rights. Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said that reports of the new owner laying off the platform’s entire human rights team were not a good start.
Türk said he was writing with “concern and apprehension about our digital public square and Twitter’s role in it.” He warned against propagating hate speech and misinformation and highlighted the need to protect user privacy, saying free speech was “not a free pass”. Türk wrote that “Like all companies”, Twitter needs to understand the harms associated with its platform and take steps to address them.
Mirroring the UN, FP published Elon Musk’s Twitter Is Becoming a Sewer of Disinformation, Changes to the platform have systematically amplified authoritarian state propaganda stating that “Few recent actions have done more to make a social media platform safe for disinformation, extremism, and authoritarian regime propaganda than the changes to Twitter since its purchase by Elon Musk in 2022. Following the takeover, the platform has disbanded its trust and safety teams” (aka: UN human rights team); “revoked bans on extremist and dangerous accounts; removed labels informing users that accounts were associated with foreign governments (including Russian and Chinese propaganda outlets); censored journalists critical of Musk; and allowed for what users report to be a sharp increase in hate speech, online trolling, and harassment.
Censorship of the right is further understood in context to The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) 2014 report Agenda 21, The UN, Sustainability and Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory. The report laments over the fact that “Agenda 21 was transformed in the mind of Americans into a secret plot to impose a totalitarian world government, a nefarious effort to crush freedom in the name of environmentalism. And it isn’t only extremists pushing this conspiracy theory — in January 2012, the Republican National Committee bought into the propaganda, denouncing Agenda 21 in a resolution as a “destructive and insidious scheme” meant to impose the “socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.” SPLC stated that “Republicans cast doubt in the public’s mind.” The Socialist/communist redistribution is explicit in UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10: Reduce inequalities within and among countries, and SDG 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequities of outcomes. The socialist and communist underpinnings of the UN are detailed by the Capital Research Center.
In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a list of 200 Bitcoin accounts linked to white supremacist leaders. SPLC claimed that decentralized, peer-to-peer, cryptocurrency appealed to hate group leaders and other influential extremists, and that no company or government could intervene to stop the donations from flowing organizations. The UN, and World Economic Forum are advocating for the abolishing of decentralized cryptocurrency and implementation of centralized central bank digital currency (CBDC) controlled by the government to mitigate this issue to control the new sustainable and equitable economy.
Censorship & Front Porch Forum
The probability is high that FPF is censoring the right based on the evidence presented thus far. Additional insight was gleaned from the Front Porch Forum’s 2022 Annual Benefit Report list of panels and publications that FPF participated in to make “Vermont communities more resilient. First, the word resilient is synonymous with Agenda 2030, meaning to protect vulnerable communities from climate change and other physical, social, and economic adversities and challenges. Secondly, FPF participated in the Dialogue on Digital Discourse for a Thriving Democracy and Resilient Communities Meeting,” Convergence, September 2022. The Convergence website states that the meeting was supported by the New Pluralists, a sponsored project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
About The New Pluralists
The New Pluralists website states “America’s founding ideals of liberty, equality, and justice have always held out the promise of pluralism — ….”
“To become a politically vibrant, multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, we must renew the promise of pluralism in America by ushering in a new pluralism.” The “New Pluralists approach focuses on culture change — on shifting the norms, values, skills, and behaviors that shape the way we see each other and ourselves.”
The claim that “America’s founding ideals of liberty, equality, and justice have always held out the promise of pluralism — ….” depends on the definition of pluralism. America is a great example of a pluralistic society, as there are many different types of interest groups advocating for their own values and causes, which influence politics. Obviously, The New Pluralists do not share this definition. The reason why is revealed in its approach on how to change Western cultural norms, which is the “critical method.” The critical method analyzes systems, language, and interactions in society to “uncover” oppressive power systems (systemic racism). The goal is to revolutionize society to achieve social justice provided people accept their moral imperative to “doing the work.” Vermont’s public-school children are “doing the work” via Social, Emotional, and Learning (SEL) programs, a neo-Marxist pedagogy, and key component of the UNESCO Education 2030 Agenda. Xusana Davis, Director of the Office of Racial Equity with the State of Vermont with the E.P.I.C. and IDEAL programs, and Abundant Sun are working collaboratively to realize the agenda.
Pluralism explained
Wikipedia: Pluralists believe that political power should not be held by any single group—whether defined by their gender, ethnicity, economic status, or political party membership—and should instead be distributed. Unlike populists, pluralists do not believe that such a thing as a “general will” exists.” The “general will” is the collective will of the people, representing what is best for the common good. The “general will” and pluralism come into conflict due to their differing views on the source of authority in society. Conflicts occur when efforts to uphold the “general will” suppress the interests and voices of minorities, and groups, challenging the principle of pluralism and its emphasis on inclusivity and diversity, and inclusion, core tenants of the UN 2030 Agenda.
Some pluralists support economic equality, redistribution of wealth. While populism supports the concerns of ordinary people against a perceived elite or establishment, advocating for their interests against those of the so-called corrupt or self-serving elite. One example is the ordinary people’s concern of the so-called self-serving elites of the World Economic Forum (WEF) featured by the Tasnim News Agency.
Pluralism Origins
Pluralism is attributed to Harold J. Latski and is a “theory, which opposes monolithic state power.” General sense of the “toleration of diversity within a society or state.” Latski was a member of the British Labor Party, who turned to Marxism to interpret the “crisis in democracy” during the Great Depression. He attacked the notion of an all-powerful sovereign state, arguing instead for political pluralism. Laski believed that the economic difficulties of capitalism could lead to the destruction of political democracy, viewing socialism as the alternative to the rising menace of fascism in both Germany and Italy.
The UNESCO Courier, Many Voices, One World; Against an individualistic impasse: Latski stated that any attempt by the UN to formulate a Declaration of Human Rights in individualist terms would fail to ensure a certain number of social rights for its citizens. Western civilization is grounded in the Protestant bourgeois tradition, which failed to realize in universal form below the level of the middle class.
The extreme ideological differences between populism and pluralism underpin the political rhetoric expressed in the ECPS European Center for Populism Studies, which claim that populists are supporters of far-right political movements and rallies associated with neo-Nazis who employ their ideology to promote hatred and attack minorities, or in some cases to create a fascist state.”
In a 2019 UN press release, Long Way to Go Before World Fulfils Promise of Pluralism, Deputy Secretary-General Tells Global Centre, Urging Respect for Diversity in Reclaiming Common Humanity, the UN Deputy Secretary stated that “pluralism has a central place in the work of the United Nations and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” “Pluralism is in the DNA of the United Nations. The Charter, our founding document, refers to “We the peoples” of the United Nations, …” Like Latski the UN rejects the notion of an all-powerful sovereign state, arguing instead for political pluralism on a global scale inclusive of all member nations.
Pluralists globally criticized the America First Agenda. The America First Agenda threatened the UN vision of “We the peoples” of the United Nations because it sought the readjustment of NAFTA, and enforcement of immigration policies, and the U.S withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2017, and withdrawal from UNESCO in 2018, and the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2018.
The Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA)
The Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), sponsor of The New Pluralists, is a UN Sustainable Development partner. It implemented the SDG Philanthropy Platform, as well as the SDGs Guide for Philanthropy.
What was learned?
There is convincing evidence to support that FPF is intentionally censoring the right because of the de facto censorship occurring, the UN history of partnering with social media platforms to systematically censor the right, and FPF’s involvement with UN strategic partners like The New Populists and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. While this important, more importantly, a great deal was learned about the coordinated global effort initiated by the UN and its partners to censor and propagandize public opinion against the right under the guise of respecting human rights, and its desire to achieve pluralism understood as “We the peoples” of the United Nations to achieve its Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.