Telecom Censorship Success — When We Don’t See the Difference Between EcoTerrorism and the SPCA
Op-Ed by Patricia Burke
A few years back, when my elderly aunt passed away, we were clearing her belongings out of her home, and we found many animal-themed items that she had received over her years of supporting the local SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).
As far I know, she wasn’t a horse person, yet there was an unwrapped hardcover edition of Black Beauty among her belongings.
As far as I know, she wasn’t supporting any of the more confrontational animal advocacy groups that engage in destructive acts, and that carry a different message that the SPCA. And she wasn’t a vegetarian, either.
What she most certainly was not, is a threat to security and safety of the nation. She was a kind little elderly woman on a limited budget who loved animals.
She was not a terrorist.
So who becomes the arbiter of threats of terrorism and violence?
In the weird, polarized, time that we live in, the mainstream news is recognized as being controlled by industry (by those who are aware of the dominance of television and full-page print advertising, as well as strategic partnerships between telecom companies and newspapers, for example the New York Times and Verizon.)
Platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and most recently Twitter supposedly offer an opportunity for freedom of expression to the masses. Many individuals are sharing creative, humorous, inspiring, entertaining and heartfelt messages of hope and generosity, alongside much name-calling and debate. At times, it gets ugly.
One message now portrayed to the public is that holding concern about the health and environmental impacts, surveillance, privacy invasion, and security about the 5th generation of telecommunications is directly linked to the destruction of cell towers and antennas. Posing questions about new infrastructure irresponsibly incites acts of violence.
The percentage of people who read news about any topic under the sun, who respond by setting something on fire, is very small.
I remember once, during a town meeting about a particular environmental issue, when a group of agitators came upon the scene seeking to escalate tensions far beyond the intentions of those gathered. Pictures that made it into the press showed the front row occupied by individuals who were never identified, and not seen or heard from again. But their actions intensified the polarization and lack of rapport between the two opposing sides. The group that was addressing the town’s administration was branded as disrespectful and confrontational, through a deliberate skillful manipulation.
I also remember when a utility shill was discovered infiltrating a smart meter opposition group in California, eventually resulting in a fine for PG&E – the same company being investigated for its role in deadly wildfires.
Spying, hiring professional imposters to fill meeting halls, and planting false stories manipulate public opinion and install false narratives in the public domain, while casting aspersions of fake news and conspiracy theory…. It’s an incredible playbook.
Like a wildfire, the industry in the United States has linked cellphone towers to accusations that opponents to 5G are inciting the violence by linking the 5G to the Covid epidemic.
Therefore, there must be no discussion of any concerns about 5G.
Now there are news stories implying a link with dangerous Chinese interests.
This follows implications by Verizon’s partner, The New York Times, implying a link with dangerous Russian interests:
Others are by promoting the same Russia theory:
Blaming opposition by a foreign actor to utility agendas seem to imply that Americans are incapable of original thought.
There is another way of looking at the question.
Many concerned citizens are concerned about the dangerous combustible combination of the abuses of power that were recently identified by The Economist in their article: “A pandemic of power grabs, Autocrats see opportunity in disaster. The world is distracted and the public need saving. It is a strongman’s dream.”
This includes overreach of insecure, environmentally damaging, surveillance apparatus known affectionately as 5G, now portrayed as a victim.
Industry sponsors Telecoms reported:
What’s not clear is whether deliberate misinformation played a role in the vandalization of a Verizon cell site in New Jersey, as spotted by Light Reading. The vandals haven’t been caught, so we can’t be sure what specific grievances they have against the cell site, but it’s hard to believe the lunacy regarding COVID-19 and 5G that has gripped much of Europe didn’t play a part in their thinking.
One legislative response proposed in the U.S. is to eliminate the need for environmental reviews for telecommunications infrastructure.
The demarcations have disappeared between reasoned concern, critical analysis, conspiracy, and criminality. There is a difference between forwarding a link about the effect of microwave exposures on bees or trees, and building an incendiary device. Like my aunt, supporting the goals of the SPCA does not make a person a terrorist. Perception is weaponized.
The vast majority of individuals holding an informed desire to protect human health and the environment in regards to 5G are not individuals who would a burn a cell antenna.
What is true is that the industries involved are not heeding concerns, as well as reported harm from telecommunications infrastructure, and the anger is real.
And halting the necessary discussion about 5G concerns, rather than examining both the science and the lack of science, is now best the industry and its partners have to offer.