How they program your mind… – Robert Malone

 by Dr. Robert Malone

How they program your mind…

Let’s examine a recent article relating to an important news story. That story being that the Supreme Court has stayed the injunction until Sept 22nd of the Missouri v. Biden case. The injunction resulted from a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.

To refresh, the Biden administration appealed yet another loss involving the Missouri v. Biden decision, after both the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and a lower court found that the administration had colluded with Big Tech/social media companies, such as Twitter (X) to censor Americans- a breach of the first amendment.


In theory, as Sept. 22nd has come and gone, this seems to imply that the injunction is now back in place, but there has been no direct coverage of this issue in corporate media. Which in turn implies that there has been no statement on this by the Supreme Court or discussion in the official SCOTUS blog.

However, we have had a proactive strike by “The Hill” relating to this topic.

The title of the article, “There’s no “disinformation” exception to the First Amendment” is strong. That is…what we all want to hear – censorship is bad!

Misinformation and disinformation retain the basic characteristics of speech. Unless they fall into one of very few exceptions, they are protected from censorship under the First Amendment.

Consistent with those very limited exceptions, any effort by the government to prevent the dissemination of ideas or opinions, even if they are based on untruths, is unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld an injunction that prohibits the government from pressuring social media platforms to de-escalate or remove speech that the government identifies as misinformation or disinformation.

On Thursday, Sept. 14, that injunction was put on pause by the Supreme Court until Sept. 22, to give the Court more time to consider the issue.

This all sounds just what we want to read, right? But then ever so slowly, the essay redefines what is free speech and ends with this:

Although the government may not be able to silence disinformation, it remains free to publish its own messages and to debate, even disparage, its critics. It can also engage, in all matters of persuasion, to encourage social media platforms to publish only those messages that support government-approved points of view.

Additionally, there are legislative options. The government can remove the immunity protections provided to social media platforms by section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. With immunity protections removed, social media companies would risk liability for harms directly related to hosted messages. They might then be motivated to create stronger content moderation policies and police them more carefully.

If, despite all best efforts, disinformation continues to infect the marketplace of ideas, then our First Amendment jurisprudence clearly holds that that is the price of our right to speak freely.

Another big hint that this article is not what it seems is that the title of the court case is “Missouri v. Biden”. Yet, somehow the article does not mention President Biden’s name once. Not once. Instead, this is as close as it gets to naming the plaintiffs: “The White House, the CDC, the FBI and the surgeon general”. Note the sleight of hand. This is the name of the case. Biden’s name is listed first on most case documents – yet the article, which has been distributed to the likes of “Real Clear Politics” and other big news aggregators, manages to not use Biden’s name once in the entire essay!

Be careful of articles like this – it starts out strong (of course, everyone believes in free speech), but in the end supports the government’s actions to censor as well as engage in propaganda.

This article uses a form of neural linguistic programming. Designed to both get you to “buy in” to the article by supporting “first amendment rights”, only to then turn the tables to write that government has a right to harass social media platforms into censoring for them. The messaging is then distributed to many news channels and the lede is repeated again and again. Which is a seemingly positive message – who doesn’t believe in free speech, right? If you buy into their twisted logic, you will have fallen deep into cognitive dissonance territory – and this is the intention.

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. People tend to seek consistency in their attitudes and perceptions, so this conflict causes unpleasant feelings of unease or discomfort.

American Psychological Association. Cognitive dissonance.

How many other news articles are also using this line of thinking on the Biden v. Missouri case? More than one? Again – repetitive messaging – positive messaging. All part of the agenda to program your mind.

This is how they win.

Confuse the mind. Remember, your mind is the battlefield where Fifth Generation Warfare is being waged.


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.