“You do not need to accept everything as true, you only have to accept it as necessary.”

– Franz Kafka, The Trial

As if on cue, the House Judiciary committee released minutes from a hearing yesterday in which Mark Zuckerberg admitted Facebook was pressured by the Biden White House to censor content on its site.

You might forgive me for being interested in “free speech” as a subject, in general; “censorship” on the major social media platforms, more specifically;  And… what it all this has to do with your health, wealth, future safety and happiness.

Bear with me. Here’s the X post about Zuck sucking up to the White House:

 

For clarity, I have a couple of very good reasons for digging into “free speech” in today’s media world. The first is mundane and academic but may help explain how my brain works.

In graduate school we spent a fair amount of time discussing the “Faurisson Affair” and its implications for “free speech.”

Here are the Cliff notes on the Faurisson Affair: In 1980, the French historian Robert Faurisson published the work Mémoire en Défense. It included an essay by American linguist Noam Chomsky, entitled “Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression,” as an introduction.

Faurisson’s book claimed, among other things, that gas chambers were not used to exterminate Jews in the Holocaust. Chomsky, a self-described Jewish socialist and notable Vietnam War protestor, defended Faurisson’s right to publish his “Holocaust Denial” views, even if he didn’t agree with him.

The Faurisson affair, as you can imagine, was controversial globally. As a student of philosophy studying the affair challenged me to think critically about “free speech.”

But Chomsky’s 1992 book and documentary  Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media were formative works in my own skeptical view of mass media. From its Wiki entry:

“Manufacturing Consent” argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion”, by means of the propaganda model of communication. The title refers to consent of the governed, a phrase popularized by Walter Lippman.

Only later did I learn of the Faurisson Affair and Chomsky’s involvement.

Ultimately, I concluded whether I agreed with Faurisson or Chomsky, it really didn’t matter. Under any system of law they “ought to” have the right to say what they believed. And I’d be the better for it. Further, it should be my choice whether to give my “consent” to believe what has been put in front of me.

That all took place before I began creating content of my own in the newsletter industry.

Which brings me to the second reason free speech is important to me personally and the Grey Swan fraternity. You may recall, my three years of recording Wiggin Session interviews began during the pandemic. One topic on everyone’s lips: the vaccine mandates.

At the time, I was publishing all my interviews publicly on YouTube. The first Wiggin Sessions interview censored was one I’d conducted with the noted vax-critic Dr. Mercola. Dr. Mercola was/is a friend of mine through a colleague working with me at the time. We recorded about 1 ½ hours of content, and it was edited and posted along with hundreds of others I’d conducted.

By the next morning, the video had been removed by the algorithm YouTube used to censor “misinformation” online. I remember thinking at the time, the most radical thing Dr. Mercola said during the interview was something along the lines of: “A couple of hours of the day naked in the sun, basking in Vitamin D, could do more for your health than the COVID vaccine.”

Later, I interviewed my friend and film producer Jeff Hays on “behind-the-scenes” intrigue while making a documentary about The Real Anthony Fauci, a book by reformed presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy, Jr.

That interview was about filmmaking, mostly; an interest which Jeff and I share. But, that interview didn’t see the light of the next morning on YouTube either.

Sketchy stuff.

How does one get controversial topics published if the social platforms and the government disagree with their content?

I have been following the Murthy v. Missouri court case since it was filed. Originally titled Missouri v. Biden, the case sought to prevent the White House from directly contacting Facebook, YouTube, Google or at the time, Twitter, and trying to influence content moderation by threats or other means, specifically related to pandemic topics.

The case made it to the Supreme Court in January 2024, but by June 26, 2024 had been sent back down to the lower courts because the plaintiffs had failed to meet the “standing under Article III, reversing the Fifth Circuit decision.”

Meaning, the White House is still free to try to directly interfere in content being moderated on all the major social media platforms. While we’re just weeks away from the first ballots of the 2024 Presidential contest being cast.

Researching these topics has led to a number of stark discoveries. The least of which involves Dr. Mercola having had his bank accounts – and those of his employees –  seized.

We’ve also uncovered a suss Executive Order from the Biden admin that went into effect on January 30, 2023, regarding how federal employees should treat discoveries of “misinformation” when they find them.

A third document instructs members of the intelligence community on how to properly (legally) surveille US citizens social media accounts.

We have some work to do to connect the dots. But there is a full-time researcher working on this free speech angle for Grey Swan, as we speak. When we’re confident in our research we’ll publish it for your own use.

In the meantime, you might now get a sense why Scott Ritter’s story is catching our attention, as well.

Today, we’ll turn to Part II of Scott Ritter’s must-read saga about how free speech has been thrown out as a relic in the 21st century.

Remember from our intro yesterday, Ritter was the U.N. inspector who was sent to Iraq to investigate claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) prior to, and during, the Second Gulf War.

At the time, Ritter was a critic of the 2nd Bush administration’s use of scare tactics around WMD as justification for the first “pre-emptive war” ever waged by the United States.

Today, Scott is just short of being accused by the Department of Justice for being an agent of a foreign adversary. When, in fact, he’s doing equally critical work investigating NATO’s role and motives in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

His crime? Reporting his own findings, his own opinion and publishing that work on Russia Today (RT).  Enjoy ~~ Addison

There Can Be No Freedom… Without Free Speech (Part II)
Scott Ritter, Scott Ritter Extra

There is no doubt that the topic and concept of Russia served as the heart of the podcast early on—the title, Ask the Inspector, was a play on my experience as a weapons inspector in both Iraq and the former Soviet Union. Indeed, promoting my book, Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union, was one of the initial priorities of the podcast.

But the heart and soul of Ask the Inspector is the interaction I (the “Inspector”) have with the audience, who submit questions ahead of time in writing, leave a voice message, call in live, or leave a live text in the podcast’s chat. This interaction is unique among podcasts of this nature and gives the show a unique “feel” that has become its signature characteristic.

On occasion Jeff and I (ably assisted by our producers, Jelena and Ryan) conduct interviews with knowledgeable guests before turning the show back over to the audience for their questions. In the past, these interviews include persons like former Congressman (and current Congressional candidate) Dennis Kucinich (yes, we talked politics), and Russian war correspondent Marat Khairullin (yes, we talked about the Russian-Ukraine conflict). I’d like to believe that, between the quality of the guests, the attention to detail that goes into the questioning, and the quality of the answers, any Ask the Inspector that includes such interviews is a standalone piece of journalism.

I expand on the work I’ve done on Ask the Inspector through my collaboration with Solovyov Live, a Russian media platform owned and operated by Vladimir Solovyov, a well-known Russian media personality. Through my collaboration with Peter Ermolin, a producer with Solovyov Live, I have interviewed dozens of significant Russian experts, academics, politicians, journalists and military specialists to better understand the Russian perspective on issues of importance.

My collaboration is 100% pro bono—I receive no money or other material incentive for doing this work. My goal is simply to empower my audience with knowledge and information they are not able to access elsewhere in the West, where Russian voices are actively suppressed. While Peter and I collaborate on guest selection, the questions asked and interview priorities are solely my responsibility. The resulting product, produced by Solovyov Live, is broadcast under the title Scott Ritter Show in Russia to a Russian audience, and on my website and social media channels to a Western, English-speaking audience.

The Scott Ritter Show is what, in my opinion, journalism should be all about: seeking out the fact-based truth and providing broader, sometimes alternative perspectives to the complex problems that the world faces today.

I post other video content on my Substack. What used to be called the “Two Minute Topics” are the byproduct of a collaboration with RT where I provide a video clip of me speaking into a camera, and RT providing graphic enhancements. I alone decide the content of these videos, which tend to focus on world events. I am compensated for this work by RT.

Sputnik turns videos I do into finished products as well, which they then publish on social media. I repost these videos to increase their viewership. Not because I’m paid (I’m not), but because I support the message being transmitted—because I am the source of that message.

I also produce original video content designed to reach both American and Russian audiences. In these, I am the one who conceives the content, authors the script, and provides the desired images to be used to make the video. I also am the one who compensates those video editors who assist in the production of the video.

I have also collaborated with a private video production team to produce a two-part documentary, Agent Zelensky, where I helped write the script and served as the on-air presenter for the film. I was likewise compensated for my work on this project. Hundreds of thousands of people viewed this documentary before YouTube deplatformed it.

I’ve produced controversial documentary content before—my film, In Shifting Sands, was lambasted as Iraqi propaganda when it first came out in 2001. It has more than withstood the test of time in terms of the accuracy and integrity of its message.

I am confident Agent Zelensky will, as well.

But my greatest impact, I believe, comes from my writing.

My Substack publishes original content that I alone am responsible for in terms of its content. I often touch upon issues pertaining to Russia, and which are critical of US policy positions. Because Russia is likewise critical of US policy positions, there is often significant agreement between the positions that I independently take, and the positions taken by the Russian government. This alignment of ideas does not constitute either direction or control, but rather a shared point of view independently arrived at.

The same can be said of articles I publish in Consortium News, or articles I previously published in TruthDig, The American Conservative, and The Washington Spectator before I was deplatformed for writing for RT. I also publish extensively in Energy Intelligence, where the topics covered often deal with Russia.

Because of my extensive interactions with Russians, including Russian state-controlled media, the content that I produce and publish, which draws upon this connectivity, possesses a strong Russian character. This, of course, is my intent, since one of my goals and objectives in doing what I do is to further better understanding between the Russian and American people by overcoming systemic Russophobia in the United States through exposure to what I call the “Russian reality.”

One way I seek to define the “Russian reality” is to bring Russian voices to the attention of an American audience for the purpose of providing a Russian perspective on issues that pertain to Russia. “Knowledge is Power” is one of my principal themes, and exposing people to the Russian perspective so that they might be more able to discern for themselves how they feel about a given issue, and what actions they may wish to undertake as a result, is the very definition of empowerment.

The Department of Justice believes that my writing is done at the behest of the Russian government. This is ludicrous in the extreme—the positions I have taken in opposition to US government policy regarding Russia significantly pre-date my interaction with Russia and Russians.

I have authored eleven books since my first effort, Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem, Once and For All, was published in 1999 by Simon and Schuster. My book about America’s addiction to nuclear weapons, Scorpion King, was published by Clarity Press in June of 2020 ( it was an updated and expanded version of the 2010 Edition, published by Nation Books under the title Dangerous Ground.) My point in highlighting these volumes is simply to point out that I have been speaking out and writing about the dangers of nuclear weapons and American nuclear policy for some time—a full decade before I entered any relationship with RT.

I have been writing about arms control for decades as well, including the aforementioned Endgame, as well as a memoir of my time as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Iraq Confidential, and two volumes about the Iranian nuclear program—Target Iran, published by Nation Books in 2006, and Dealbreaker, published by Clarity Press in 2018. Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika was published in 2022.

I’ve been doing arms control and disarmament for a long time as well.

I’ve published two volumes on the concept of holding elected officials accountable for what they do in our name—Frontier Justice, published in 2003 by Context Books, and Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Anti-War Movement, published by Nation Books in 2007.

Being politically engaged as a citizen activist has been part of my DNA for decades.

Writing about failed military adventures has likewise been part of my literary repertoire. In 2002, I co-authored a book, War on Iraq, with William Rivers Pitt, which was published by Context Books and spoke to the dangers of going to war with Iraq based upon a lie. And just this year, Clarity Press published a book I co-authored with Ania K, a Polish podcaster, called Covering Ukraine: The Scott Ritter Interviews through the Eyes of Ania K.

The Department of Justice would have you believe that Covering Ukraine, which takes a critical look at the Ukraine conflict in a way that is more sympathetic to the Russian narrative than that being promulgated in the US, is part and parcel of a Russian disinformation campaign that uses me and my work, “wittingly or unwittingly,” to sow disinformation designed to move the needle of the American body politic in the 2024 election.

They are half-right—I am trying to move the needle of the American body politic this election season, away from the failed and failing policies of the Biden administration and toward a policy direction that avoids conflict while promoting peace.

But I don’t do this as an agent, witting or unwitting, of the Russian government.

I do this as a loyal American patriot who has been engaged in the business of informing and educating an American audience for decades, always with the goal of guiding my fellow citizens away from bad policy and toward better policy.

There is no greater patriotic calling.

The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that “Our First Amendment decisions have created a rough hierarchy in the constitutional protection of speech. Core political speech occupies the highest, most protected position,” adding that “Expressions on public issues has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.”

Likewise, the Supreme Court has held that for the Department of Justice to prosecute speech it deems offensive would directly contradict the First Amendment’s core ability to prevent the government from suppressing “unpopular ideas or information.”

Expressing dissatisfaction with the policies of the United States is, according to the Supreme Court, “expression situated at the core of our First Amendment values.”

The Supreme Court has further elaborated on this point, declaring that “there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.”

One of my greatest concerns is that the American people remain indifferent to the attack on their basic freedoms and liberties that the Department of Justice raids on myself and Dimitri Simes represent.

Carved into a wall as the final words one confronts as they leave the United States Holocaust Museum is the post-war confessional poem written by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller. These words are meant to serve as an indictment of the passivity and indifference shown by Niemöller and his fellow German as the Holocaust raged all around them.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

***

First they came for Julian Assange, and I did not speak out—

Because he was not an American.

Then they came for RT and Sputnik, and I did not speak out—

Because they were Russian.

Then they came for Scott Ritter, and I did not speak out—

Because I disagreed with his point of view.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

We can also speak of the ongoing prosecution of the Uhuru 3, members of an American pan-Africanist movement charged with acting as agents of the Russian government, in this regard.

No one will be left to speak up in our collective defense of free speech because free speech and a free press were allowed to be killed by a politicized Department of Justice working at the behest of a US government which retained its hold on power by suppressing all opposition in the name of defending democracy from misinformation and disinformation.

Despite the reality that the US government and its minions in the mainstream media collude daily to control the narrative of all issues which give rise to public concern and criticism.

Here’s the unvarnished truth—if you allow yourself to sit back passively while the US government attacks free speech and a free press in the name of countering Russian disinformation, you are remaining passive in the death of America and all it stands for.

Because once the US government silences the “pro-Russian” crowd, they will turn their sights on the next practitioner of inconvenient speech.

If you are a pro-gun advocate, you’re next.

And no one will be there to defend you.

If you are pro-life, you’re next.

And no one will be there to defend you.

If you are anti-vaccination, you’re next.

And no one will be there to defend you.

There is a saying, Once a Marine, always a Marine.

Marines are defined and motivated by those who have gone before them.

One of the Marines that I have used as my historical mentor is Captain Bill Barber.

From November 28 to December 2, 1950, Captain Barber and the Marines of Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines defended a three-mile stretch of hills known as the Toktong Pass. For five days and six nights, Barber and the Marines of Fox Company, some 220 strong, held off an attacking force of over 1,800 Chinese.

At the end of the battle, more than 1,000 Chinese lay dead on the hilly ground around Toktong Pass. Only 82 of Barber’s Marines were able to walk off the hills. Barber was ordered to withdraw after the first night because his commanders believed his company could not hold out. Had he obeyed that order, 8,000 Marines would have been trapped in the mountains of North Korea, cut off from their escape route. Because Barber refused to retreat, these 8,000 Marines were able to be evacuated.

“Free speech” is my Toktong Pass. ~~ Scott Ritter, Scott Ritter Extra

So it goes,

Addison Wiggin
Founder, The Wiggin Sessions

P.S. Even if free speech isn’t an issue you’re interested in, it’s very much under fire today. And few politicians care to take up the banner to preserve this essential right.

As President, Donald Trump often had criticisms about those who exercised his free speech against him. Following the events of January 6, 2021, many on the political left saw a reason to burn their ACLU cards and enthusiastically agree to curb speech, at least provided it was any speech about election integrity.

Free speech should have a home in every American political party. Today, it is homeless. Entirely new internet platforms have been built over the past few years to preserve conservative speech online and bypass “big tech” gatekeepers.

And when the government decides to employ lawfare in favor of one type of speech over another, we’re back at the same tyranny that led Patrick Henry to boldly declare, “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

Please send your helpful comments, especially with regard to our own investigation, to addison@greyswanfraternity.com.