Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

12 voices. One warning. The arts cannot call themselves free while fear, censorship, ideological policing and double standards shape what can be said, shown and staged. This House of Lords debate matters. Freedom_In_The_Arts House of Lords Claire Fox Toby Young Sharron Davies HoL MBE Amanda Spielman Anne Jenkin Brenda...

RosieKayK2CO's profile picture

Rosie Kay

19,899 subscribers

27,716 views • 28 days ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsEducationArts
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

👇 Watch this. Then take action. FSU General Secretary Lord Young and Conservative MP Andrew Griffith literally get thrown out of a pub — ironically enough, while discussing Clause 20 of Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which seeks to ban ‘banter’. It’s a funny moment. But no one will be laughing if this dreadful Bill passes in its current form. Clause 20 would make employers legally liable if staff overhear offhand remarks, jokes, or political opinions they claim are ‘harassing’, even if the comments weren’t directed at them. And it won’t stop at pubs. This clause threatens football grounds, restaurants, and universities too. What we’re facing is state-enforced speech policing. The fearful, stifling atmosphere already gripping workplaces will spread to bars, hotels, stadiums, and campuses, accelerating Britain’s transformation into East Germany circa 1984. The good news? Lord Young has tabled a series of amendments in the House of Lords to scrap Clause 20 or blunt its worst effects. 📝 Use our quick-write tool to email a peer and urge them to support these amendments. This may be your last chance to stop Clause 20. 👉 Toby Young | Andrew Griffith MP
2:08

👇 Watch this. Then take action. FSU General Secretary Lord Young and Conservative MP Andrew Griffith literally get thrown out of a pub — ironically enough, while discussing Clause 20 of Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which seeks to ban ‘banter’. It’s a funny moment. But no one will be laughing if this dreadful Bill passes in its current form. Clause 20 would make employers legally liable if staff overhear offhand remarks, jokes, or political opinions they claim are ‘harassing’, even if the comments weren’t directed at them. And it won’t stop at pubs. This clause threatens football grounds, restaurants, and universities too. What we’re facing is state-enforced speech policing. The fearful, stifling atmosphere already gripping workplaces will spread to bars, hotels, stadiums, and campuses, accelerating Britain’s transformation into East Germany circa 1984. The good news? Lord Young has tabled a series of amendments in the House of Lords to scrap Clause 20 or blunt its worst effects. 📝 Use our quick-write tool to email a peer and urge them to support these amendments. This may be your last chance to stop Clause 20. 👉 Toby Young | Andrew Griffith MP

The Free Speech Union

57,871 views • 1 year ago

Speaking in the Defence Spending debate, I say without hesitation that this is one of the most important debates we will take part in during our time in this House, because it concerns the most fundamental duty of any Government: the defence of the realm. I genuinely believe we face the most dangerous strategic environment since the 1930s. UK Defence spending must rise. During the Cold War we understood the threat. NATO was united. We knew what had to be done. Today, we face a growing threat yet remain dangerously complacent. The parallels with the 1930s are becoming harder to ignore. My father, who fought throughout the Second World War, could never forgive those politicians who failed to recognise the danger gathering before them and left Britain dangerously unprepared. That lesson has stayed with me throughout my life. Today we see the rise of increasingly aggressive authoritarian powers. China stands at the centre of that challenge, alongside Russia, Iran and North Korea. While they have invested heavily in military and industrial capability, we have spent too long assuming that peace was permanent. Unlike the 1930s, we no longer possess the industrial capacity that allowed Britain to rapidly rearm. That should concern every Member of this House. Of course we can debate decisions taken by previous governments, but the past cannot be changed. The only question that matters is whether we have learned from it. 3% of GDP during this Parliament should be regarded not as an ambition but as the minimum starting point. Beyond that, we should be setting a clear path towards four and ultimately five per cent. When the Soviet threat intensified, NATO nations stepped up because they understood what was at stake. Strength preserved peace then, and it remains the surest guarantee of peace today. I urge the Government to listen carefully to what has been said in this debate. Listen to those who have spoken from experience. Listen to those who have sacrificed ministerial office because they believe this issue matters. Listen to the growing concern across this House. We are ready to support the measures necessary to strengthen our defences. We are ready to make the difficult choices. We are ready to put the security of our nation first. But what we must never do is repeat the mistakes of the past. For if we fail to prepare for the dangers that are now gathering before us, future generations may ask why we ignored the warnings, and history will not judge us kindly if we do.
3:21

Speaking in the Defence Spending debate, I say without hesitation that this is one of the most important debates we will take part in during our time in this House, because it concerns the most fundamental duty of any Government: the defence of the realm. I genuinely believe we face the most dangerous strategic environment since the 1930s. UK Defence spending must rise. During the Cold War we understood the threat. NATO was united. We knew what had to be done. Today, we face a growing threat yet remain dangerously complacent. The parallels with the 1930s are becoming harder to ignore. My father, who fought throughout the Second World War, could never forgive those politicians who failed to recognise the danger gathering before them and left Britain dangerously unprepared. That lesson has stayed with me throughout my life. Today we see the rise of increasingly aggressive authoritarian powers. China stands at the centre of that challenge, alongside Russia, Iran and North Korea. While they have invested heavily in military and industrial capability, we have spent too long assuming that peace was permanent. Unlike the 1930s, we no longer possess the industrial capacity that allowed Britain to rapidly rearm. That should concern every Member of this House. Of course we can debate decisions taken by previous governments, but the past cannot be changed. The only question that matters is whether we have learned from it. 3% of GDP during this Parliament should be regarded not as an ambition but as the minimum starting point. Beyond that, we should be setting a clear path towards four and ultimately five per cent. When the Soviet threat intensified, NATO nations stepped up because they understood what was at stake. Strength preserved peace then, and it remains the surest guarantee of peace today. I urge the Government to listen carefully to what has been said in this debate. Listen to those who have spoken from experience. Listen to those who have sacrificed ministerial office because they believe this issue matters. Listen to the growing concern across this House. We are ready to support the measures necessary to strengthen our defences. We are ready to make the difficult choices. We are ready to put the security of our nation first. But what we must never do is repeat the mistakes of the past. For if we fail to prepare for the dangers that are now gathering before us, future generations may ask why we ignored the warnings, and history will not judge us kindly if we do.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

10,848 views • 1 month ago

Many of you now know how I feel about Erika Kirk. I’ve said before that even people who don’t openly admit it still feel that something about her behavior is off. Some people ask, 'Why does this matter? Why not just forget about Erika Kirk and move on' The reason we can’t ignore it is simple. We’re talking about someone who has influence within one of the most effective youth organizations in the country. This organization has the ears and attention of young people on a massive scale. Millions of dollars are spent on events like those run by Turning Point so figures like Ben Shapiro can speak to young audiences and indirectly try to convince them why they should die for Israel a foreign country that does not share the same goals or values that we do. So, is Erika Kirk important? Yes. Her importance comes from the network and influence behind her. That’s where the real power lies. With the platforms and backing she has, she has the ability to shape ideas and influence thousands of students on college campuses. Those students are our future presidents, politicians, and corporate leaders, and it absolutely matters who is whispering in their ears. That literally is the future of your country. You can’t deny it’s true, because Charlie Kirk showed you how big of an influence this organization could have. Charlie Kirk built an incredibly successful movement that motivated many young people to pursue positive goals. But the same machinery that once directed people toward constructive action and the right ideals can just as easily push them in a different direction. And lately, it’s hard not to notice that Charlie Kirk’s messaging is no longer guiding this organization. We’re also seeing unusual alliances and appearances involving figures like Nicki Minaj and Ben Shapiro. At the same time, people like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly weren’t immediately pushed aside, because doing that all at once would be too obvious. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen gradually. Turning Point USA is not just another organization. It regularly intersects with the White House and with some of the most influential voices in America. Those voices then shape the thinking of the next generation. These are your future politicians and corporate leaders, and you absolutely should care about what they are learning and where their minds are at. I spoke about this and more with Harrison. Link below.
1:00

Many of you now know how I feel about Erika Kirk. I’ve said before that even people who don’t openly admit it still feel that something about her behavior is off. Some people ask, 'Why does this matter? Why not just forget about Erika Kirk and move on' The reason we can’t ignore it is simple. We’re talking about someone who has influence within one of the most effective youth organizations in the country. This organization has the ears and attention of young people on a massive scale. Millions of dollars are spent on events like those run by Turning Point so figures like Ben Shapiro can speak to young audiences and indirectly try to convince them why they should die for Israel a foreign country that does not share the same goals or values that we do. So, is Erika Kirk important? Yes. Her importance comes from the network and influence behind her. That’s where the real power lies. With the platforms and backing she has, she has the ability to shape ideas and influence thousands of students on college campuses. Those students are our future presidents, politicians, and corporate leaders, and it absolutely matters who is whispering in their ears. That literally is the future of your country. You can’t deny it’s true, because Charlie Kirk showed you how big of an influence this organization could have. Charlie Kirk built an incredibly successful movement that motivated many young people to pursue positive goals. But the same machinery that once directed people toward constructive action and the right ideals can just as easily push them in a different direction. And lately, it’s hard not to notice that Charlie Kirk’s messaging is no longer guiding this organization. We’re also seeing unusual alliances and appearances involving figures like Nicki Minaj and Ben Shapiro. At the same time, people like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly weren’t immediately pushed aside, because doing that all at once would be too obvious. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen gradually. Turning Point USA is not just another organization. It regularly intersects with the White House and with some of the most influential voices in America. Those voices then shape the thinking of the next generation. These are your future politicians and corporate leaders, and you absolutely should care about what they are learning and where their minds are at. I spoke about this and more with Harrison. Link below.

ELIZABETH LANE

76,324 views • 4 months ago

The Trump administration is attacking free speech, say the media and Democrats. On Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi said, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. And there’s no place [for it], especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie.” Fear of the Trump administration led ABC to abandon late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel yesterday, said progressives. Kimmel had claimed the man who assassinated conservative leader Charlie Kirk was “MAGA.” Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates broadcast networks, said, in response, “This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney [ABC’s owner]. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” However, prominent Trump supporters condemned Bondi’s remarks en masse, near-instantaneously, and she backtracked the next day, saying, “If you want to be a hateful person and simply say hateful things, that is your right to do so.” As for Carr, he dismissed the idea that his words played a significant role in ABC’s decision, telling Public, “the reporting is that Disney itself had their own concerns about the programming. A lot of folks want to point fingers here at convenient targets because they don’t want to see or deal with the broader market trends. Late night ratings are way down.” And yet it is difficult to believe that Carr’s remarks had no influence. It is reasonable to think that Nexstar may have feared that the FCC wouldn’t approve its acquisition of Tegna, which operates 64 stations in 51 markets, if it had allowed Kimmel’s show to continue. That purchase requires the FCC to allow Nexstar to go beyond current limits on broadcast station ownership. And, notes the Journal, Carr’s remarks may have indirectly impacted Disney: “Executives also discussed staff safety, including threatening emails staff on Kimmel’s show had received after Carr’s remarks and the posting of some of their personal information online, the people said.” The FCC repealed the “fairness doctrine” in 1987, since it required too much government regulation of content, and the FCC’s “public interest” power is not a license to police programs like Kimmel. Indeed, the FCC’s mandate today is largely structural with narrow content exceptions (e.g., indecency, children’s programming, and political advertising). As such, Carr’s remarks were “jawboning,” a term that refers to speech or implied threats by government officials to pressure private parties into actions that officials cannot legally mandate. Such jawboning can be a form of indirect censorship. President Biden engaged in similar pressure tactics when he publicly said social media companies were “killing people” by not removing Covid “misinformation.” Biden officials also invoked Section 230 to coerce platforms into greater censorship, and internal Facebook emails revealed that the company was worried about failing to secure a data deal with Europe if it did not comply with the administration’s censorship demands. The Left’s complaints about censorship are made in particularly bad faith, given its role in defending the Biden administration’s coercive jawboning and the resulting mass censorship during Covid. The Left also normalized “cancellations,” calling for countless public figures and private individuals to be deplatformed and fired for causing offense. In 2018, Kimmel mocked Roseanne Barr after ABC canceled her show after she posted an offensive tweet about a black former Obama administration official. The people decrying what Bondi and Carr said are the same ones who demanded sweeping government censorship of social media platforms in the guise of combating “misinformation” and “hate speech” in 2020 and 2021. Consider Barack Obama, who criticized Carr’s remarks. It was Obama’s people at the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, National Science Foundation, DOD, and CIA who put in place the Censorship Industrial Complex between 2016 and 2024. And it was Obama who gave a 2022 speech at Stanford laying out a vision for government “regulation” of social media platforms one week before DHS launched its “Disinformation Governance Board.” The Democrat-supported Censorship Industrial Complex was and remains, in Europe and elsewhere, a far greater threat to free speech than the angry remarks of Trump and Carr, as inappropriate and as unhelpful as they were. The Complex was embedded in the government, including the Intelligence Community, and operated secretly to manipulate information, public opinion, and “whole narratives.” New York Times columnist David French, who criticized the Trump administration for censorship, defended government censorship in the past as “correcting misinformation” and pointed to the First Amendment rights of government employees. It’s important to remember the context we are in. A little over one week has passed since an individual, who appears to be a Left-wing romantic partner of a trans-identified male, assassinated a major conservative leader, Charlie Kirk. Assassination is the ultimate form of censorship. And Kirk was a communications and organizing prodigy who many on the Right viewed as future Republican presidential material. Kirk’s killing comes after 10 years of the Left, broadly defined to include the media, Democrats, and the progressive NGO industry, dehumanizing Republicans. As such, many, if not most, on the Right hold the Left responsible for the killing of one of its most promising leaders, who also happened to be a family man and Christian. When it comes to public opinion, five times more people on the Left justify violence than those on the Right. A YouGov survey conducted after Kirk’s assassination found that 25% of people who describe themselves as “very liberal” and 17% who describe themselves as “liberal” say that it is sometimes justified to resort to violence to achieve political goals. Only 3% of people who describe themselves as “very conservative” and 6% of people who describe themselves as “conservative” said the same thing. A separate poll earlier this year found that 55% of people who identify as left of center say that it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Trump. But it is short-sighted for the Trump administration to do and say things that undermine its ability to demand free speech abroad, and hold the Left accountable at home. The Trump administration has rightly raised the alarm about censorship in Europe and Brazil of American social media platforms, and often of Americans. Carr’s remarks about the “easy way or the hard way” undercut the administration’s free speech diplomacy.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
6:20

The Trump administration is attacking free speech, say the media and Democrats. On Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi said, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. And there’s no place [for it], especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie.” Fear of the Trump administration led ABC to abandon late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel yesterday, said progressives. Kimmel had claimed the man who assassinated conservative leader Charlie Kirk was “MAGA.” Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates broadcast networks, said, in response, “This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney [ABC’s owner]. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” However, prominent Trump supporters condemned Bondi’s remarks en masse, near-instantaneously, and she backtracked the next day, saying, “If you want to be a hateful person and simply say hateful things, that is your right to do so.” As for Carr, he dismissed the idea that his words played a significant role in ABC’s decision, telling Public, “the reporting is that Disney itself had their own concerns about the programming. A lot of folks want to point fingers here at convenient targets because they don’t want to see or deal with the broader market trends. Late night ratings are way down.” And yet it is difficult to believe that Carr’s remarks had no influence. It is reasonable to think that Nexstar may have feared that the FCC wouldn’t approve its acquisition of Tegna, which operates 64 stations in 51 markets, if it had allowed Kimmel’s show to continue. That purchase requires the FCC to allow Nexstar to go beyond current limits on broadcast station ownership. And, notes the Journal, Carr’s remarks may have indirectly impacted Disney: “Executives also discussed staff safety, including threatening emails staff on Kimmel’s show had received after Carr’s remarks and the posting of some of their personal information online, the people said.” The FCC repealed the “fairness doctrine” in 1987, since it required too much government regulation of content, and the FCC’s “public interest” power is not a license to police programs like Kimmel. Indeed, the FCC’s mandate today is largely structural with narrow content exceptions (e.g., indecency, children’s programming, and political advertising). As such, Carr’s remarks were “jawboning,” a term that refers to speech or implied threats by government officials to pressure private parties into actions that officials cannot legally mandate. Such jawboning can be a form of indirect censorship. President Biden engaged in similar pressure tactics when he publicly said social media companies were “killing people” by not removing Covid “misinformation.” Biden officials also invoked Section 230 to coerce platforms into greater censorship, and internal Facebook emails revealed that the company was worried about failing to secure a data deal with Europe if it did not comply with the administration’s censorship demands. The Left’s complaints about censorship are made in particularly bad faith, given its role in defending the Biden administration’s coercive jawboning and the resulting mass censorship during Covid. The Left also normalized “cancellations,” calling for countless public figures and private individuals to be deplatformed and fired for causing offense. In 2018, Kimmel mocked Roseanne Barr after ABC canceled her show after she posted an offensive tweet about a black former Obama administration official. The people decrying what Bondi and Carr said are the same ones who demanded sweeping government censorship of social media platforms in the guise of combating “misinformation” and “hate speech” in 2020 and 2021. Consider Barack Obama, who criticized Carr’s remarks. It was Obama’s people at the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, National Science Foundation, DOD, and CIA who put in place the Censorship Industrial Complex between 2016 and 2024. And it was Obama who gave a 2022 speech at Stanford laying out a vision for government “regulation” of social media platforms one week before DHS launched its “Disinformation Governance Board.” The Democrat-supported Censorship Industrial Complex was and remains, in Europe and elsewhere, a far greater threat to free speech than the angry remarks of Trump and Carr, as inappropriate and as unhelpful as they were. The Complex was embedded in the government, including the Intelligence Community, and operated secretly to manipulate information, public opinion, and “whole narratives.” New York Times columnist David French, who criticized the Trump administration for censorship, defended government censorship in the past as “correcting misinformation” and pointed to the First Amendment rights of government employees. It’s important to remember the context we are in. A little over one week has passed since an individual, who appears to be a Left-wing romantic partner of a trans-identified male, assassinated a major conservative leader, Charlie Kirk. Assassination is the ultimate form of censorship. And Kirk was a communications and organizing prodigy who many on the Right viewed as future Republican presidential material. Kirk’s killing comes after 10 years of the Left, broadly defined to include the media, Democrats, and the progressive NGO industry, dehumanizing Republicans. As such, many, if not most, on the Right hold the Left responsible for the killing of one of its most promising leaders, who also happened to be a family man and Christian. When it comes to public opinion, five times more people on the Left justify violence than those on the Right. A YouGov survey conducted after Kirk’s assassination found that 25% of people who describe themselves as “very liberal” and 17% who describe themselves as “liberal” say that it is sometimes justified to resort to violence to achieve political goals. Only 3% of people who describe themselves as “very conservative” and 6% of people who describe themselves as “conservative” said the same thing. A separate poll earlier this year found that 55% of people who identify as left of center say that it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Trump. But it is short-sighted for the Trump administration to do and say things that undermine its ability to demand free speech abroad, and hold the Left accountable at home. The Trump administration has rightly raised the alarm about censorship in Europe and Brazil of American social media platforms, and often of Americans. Carr’s remarks about the “easy way or the hard way” undercut the administration’s free speech diplomacy.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

42,752 views • 10 months ago

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has moved swiftly to dismantle the federal censorship infrastructure. In his first week, he signed an executive order barring agencies from funding or facilitating the monitoring or removal of lawful domestic speech. His administration has phased out censorship-related NSF grants, eliminated the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which had coordinated with outside groups to shape online narratives, and shut down USAID, which funded censorship advocacy in Europe and Brazil. And Trump’s 2026 budget proposes cutting $491 million from the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, which oversaw election and Covid censorship in 2020 and 2021. But the threat to free speech remains and has even grown stronger around the world, particularly in Europe. The UK is arresting 30 people per day for speech crimes. In Germany, 14 little-known state media agencies (SMAs) empowered by the 2020 “Media State Treaty” now monitor private journalists for compliance with vague “journalistic diligence” standards while exempting public broadcasters from the same scrutiny. French authorities want mandatory digital identification for users of social media platforms. The European Commission appears to desire the power to ban or censor whole platforms, particularly Elon Musk’s X. And an Irish newspaper this week reported that the European Commission accused Ireland of “failing” to comply with laws regulating hate speech. The wind remains at the back of free speech lovers. The change of government in the U.S. is already influencing Europe, where officials appear to be reconsidering some of the most aggressive censorship policies. In the UK, American negotiators have raised concerns about free speech tied to the Online Safety Act. At the same time, in the EU, the Digital Services Act enforcement faces legal and logistical delays. France has drawn criticism for prosecuting satirical speech, and in Germany, a CBS 60 Minutes segment has fueled backlash against selective speech policing. Meanwhile, some in Brussels worry that the EU’s growing alignment with censorship risks its credibility as a champion of liberal democracy. Even so, there is reason to be alarmed by what’s happening in Europe, says the Foundation for Freedom Online’s Mike Benz. “The most existential threats are now shifting around the international landscape and how that boomerangs back to the U.S.,” he said in a new podcast. American censorship leaders are working with European governments and NGOs to impose European censorship on social media platforms. “The University of Cambridge Social Decisionmaking Lab works with the Global Engagement Center at the State Department,” he said. “It works with CISA at DHS. It works with the entire USAID network and USAID funds dozens of these funds — University of Cambridge’s censorship work, London School of Economics, King's College, Sheffield College, Oxford Internet Institute — the State Department and USAID fund all these. And they effectively are a foreign group that is paid for by taxpayers to subvert the agenda taxpayers voted for. It's an incredible scandal.” And Europe is reacting to the Trump administration by seeking to replace the financing it cut for censorship. “Just this week,” Benz said, “the EU announced a a giant science research fund, $500 million, as an initial pool of funding and said they are actively recruiting researchers from the United States who USAID funded to come get their funds so they can continue their work by going to the EU. And this is happening in tandem with a tense standoff between the Trump administration and the EU over everything from Russia-Ukraine to tariff policy to tech regulation to you name it. And so the EU is basically pumping up the shadow diplomacy aspect of the US.” All of this is happening at a time when the ruling parties in Germany, France, and Romania are resorting to increasingly undemocratic tactics in what appear to be desperate attempts to hold onto power as populist challengers surge in the polls. In Germany, the domestic intelligence service has officially labeled the AfD “extremist” a transparent response to the new government’s weakness and the AfD’s new status as the nation’s most popular political party. In France, prosecutors banned Marine Le Pen from running for president at a time where she too is polling first nationwide. And in Romania, the high court disqualified the leading opposition candidate from running for president, which most believe is a reaction to his opposition to a new NATO base in Romania. “What's happening in Europe right now is simultaneously highly optimistic, white-pilling, inspiring, but also dark, twisted, sadistic, calamitous, catastrophic, and apocalyptic,” said Benz. Populist political success has caused NATO and the EU establishment to have “prosecutors and judges nullifying or barring candidates from running when they're winning, and prosecutors taking them out so they can't run again or can't make their voices heard or can't campaign because they're in prison or outright barred.” Why is this happening? What can be done about it? Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
10:48

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has moved swiftly to dismantle the federal censorship infrastructure. In his first week, he signed an executive order barring agencies from funding or facilitating the monitoring or removal of lawful domestic speech. His administration has phased out censorship-related NSF grants, eliminated the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which had coordinated with outside groups to shape online narratives, and shut down USAID, which funded censorship advocacy in Europe and Brazil. And Trump’s 2026 budget proposes cutting $491 million from the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, which oversaw election and Covid censorship in 2020 and 2021. But the threat to free speech remains and has even grown stronger around the world, particularly in Europe. The UK is arresting 30 people per day for speech crimes. In Germany, 14 little-known state media agencies (SMAs) empowered by the 2020 “Media State Treaty” now monitor private journalists for compliance with vague “journalistic diligence” standards while exempting public broadcasters from the same scrutiny. French authorities want mandatory digital identification for users of social media platforms. The European Commission appears to desire the power to ban or censor whole platforms, particularly Elon Musk’s X. And an Irish newspaper this week reported that the European Commission accused Ireland of “failing” to comply with laws regulating hate speech. The wind remains at the back of free speech lovers. The change of government in the U.S. is already influencing Europe, where officials appear to be reconsidering some of the most aggressive censorship policies. In the UK, American negotiators have raised concerns about free speech tied to the Online Safety Act. At the same time, in the EU, the Digital Services Act enforcement faces legal and logistical delays. France has drawn criticism for prosecuting satirical speech, and in Germany, a CBS 60 Minutes segment has fueled backlash against selective speech policing. Meanwhile, some in Brussels worry that the EU’s growing alignment with censorship risks its credibility as a champion of liberal democracy. Even so, there is reason to be alarmed by what’s happening in Europe, says the Foundation for Freedom Online’s Mike Benz. “The most existential threats are now shifting around the international landscape and how that boomerangs back to the U.S.,” he said in a new podcast. American censorship leaders are working with European governments and NGOs to impose European censorship on social media platforms. “The University of Cambridge Social Decisionmaking Lab works with the Global Engagement Center at the State Department,” he said. “It works with CISA at DHS. It works with the entire USAID network and USAID funds dozens of these funds — University of Cambridge’s censorship work, London School of Economics, King's College, Sheffield College, Oxford Internet Institute — the State Department and USAID fund all these. And they effectively are a foreign group that is paid for by taxpayers to subvert the agenda taxpayers voted for. It's an incredible scandal.” And Europe is reacting to the Trump administration by seeking to replace the financing it cut for censorship. “Just this week,” Benz said, “the EU announced a a giant science research fund, $500 million, as an initial pool of funding and said they are actively recruiting researchers from the United States who USAID funded to come get their funds so they can continue their work by going to the EU. And this is happening in tandem with a tense standoff between the Trump administration and the EU over everything from Russia-Ukraine to tariff policy to tech regulation to you name it. And so the EU is basically pumping up the shadow diplomacy aspect of the US.” All of this is happening at a time when the ruling parties in Germany, France, and Romania are resorting to increasingly undemocratic tactics in what appear to be desperate attempts to hold onto power as populist challengers surge in the polls. In Germany, the domestic intelligence service has officially labeled the AfD “extremist” a transparent response to the new government’s weakness and the AfD’s new status as the nation’s most popular political party. In France, prosecutors banned Marine Le Pen from running for president at a time where she too is polling first nationwide. And in Romania, the high court disqualified the leading opposition candidate from running for president, which most believe is a reaction to his opposition to a new NATO base in Romania. “What's happening in Europe right now is simultaneously highly optimistic, white-pilling, inspiring, but also dark, twisted, sadistic, calamitous, catastrophic, and apocalyptic,” said Benz. Populist political success has caused NATO and the EU establishment to have “prosecutors and judges nullifying or barring candidates from running when they're winning, and prosecutors taking them out so they can't run again or can't make their voices heard or can't campaign because they're in prison or outright barred.” Why is this happening? What can be done about it? Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

189,345 views • 1 year ago

Last night in the House of Lords, the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, proposed three amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. These amendments address what should be a straightforward question: should misgendering a trans person be treated as a criminal or aggravated offence? Clearly, the answer is no. The Government has proposed an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that extends the aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 — currently limited to race and religion — to cover sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex and disability. In addition, it wants those aggravators to be extended to a new offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress to emergency workers. But why? The Crown Prosecution Service already has the power to flag sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability as aggravating factors when bringing a prosecution. When flagged in this way, incidents are recorded by the police as hate incidents, and judges can take those aggravating factors into account when sentencing. So what is the point? It won't create any additional safeguards for these 'protected' groups in the criminal law. The police, CPS and courts already treat sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity as aggravating factors. The main consequence of the Government's amendments — should they become law — will be to signal to the police that reports of supposedly “offensive” social media posts, aggravated by hostility towards these characteristics, should be prioritised — or, rather, given even more priority than they already are. More than 12,000 people were arrested in 2023 on suspicion of committing an offence for something they posted online. That’s over 30 people a day. Yet fewer than one in ten of those arrested were ultimately convicted and sentenced. The Free Speech Union has long argued that the police should focus on solving real crimes on our streets, not policing our tweets. Lord Young’s third amendment concerns Section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986. The Government is intending to create a new offence on April 1st — intentionally causing a person harassment, alarm or distress because of their sex. And that could include misgendering because, after all, it would be prompted by the perception that the real sex of the 'victim' is at odds with the sex they claim to be. And you can bet your bottom dollar trans activists will claim that misgendering them (in reality, using their correct gender pronouns) will cause them harassment, alarm or distress. Lord Young’s amendment would create a carve-out for misgendering, making it clear it's not an offence under s4B. Even if these changes to the law don't result in people being prosecuted for misgendering, they could easily result in people being investigated and arrested. Forty per cent of the 5,600 cases handled by the Free Speech Union in the last six years relate to sex and gender. These are not hypothetical scenarios. They reflect the reality of how the system already operates. Lord Young’s amendments ask for something modest: clarification that misgendering should not be treated as a criminal offence, let alone an aggravated one. They would not prevent police from investigating genuine crimes committed against trans individuals. But they would remove the potential for the law to be weaponised against lawful speech. Watch Lord Young below 👇
7:43

Last night in the House of Lords, the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, proposed three amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. These amendments address what should be a straightforward question: should misgendering a trans person be treated as a criminal or aggravated offence? Clearly, the answer is no. The Government has proposed an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that extends the aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 — currently limited to race and religion — to cover sexual orientation, transgender identity, sex and disability. In addition, it wants those aggravators to be extended to a new offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress to emergency workers. But why? The Crown Prosecution Service already has the power to flag sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability as aggravating factors when bringing a prosecution. When flagged in this way, incidents are recorded by the police as hate incidents, and judges can take those aggravating factors into account when sentencing. So what is the point? It won't create any additional safeguards for these 'protected' groups in the criminal law. The police, CPS and courts already treat sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity as aggravating factors. The main consequence of the Government's amendments — should they become law — will be to signal to the police that reports of supposedly “offensive” social media posts, aggravated by hostility towards these characteristics, should be prioritised — or, rather, given even more priority than they already are. More than 12,000 people were arrested in 2023 on suspicion of committing an offence for something they posted online. That’s over 30 people a day. Yet fewer than one in ten of those arrested were ultimately convicted and sentenced. The Free Speech Union has long argued that the police should focus on solving real crimes on our streets, not policing our tweets. Lord Young’s third amendment concerns Section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986. The Government is intending to create a new offence on April 1st — intentionally causing a person harassment, alarm or distress because of their sex. And that could include misgendering because, after all, it would be prompted by the perception that the real sex of the 'victim' is at odds with the sex they claim to be. And you can bet your bottom dollar trans activists will claim that misgendering them (in reality, using their correct gender pronouns) will cause them harassment, alarm or distress. Lord Young’s amendment would create a carve-out for misgendering, making it clear it's not an offence under s4B. Even if these changes to the law don't result in people being prosecuted for misgendering, they could easily result in people being investigated and arrested. Forty per cent of the 5,600 cases handled by the Free Speech Union in the last six years relate to sex and gender. These are not hypothetical scenarios. They reflect the reality of how the system already operates. Lord Young’s amendments ask for something modest: clarification that misgendering should not be treated as a criminal offence, let alone an aggravated one. They would not prevent police from investigating genuine crimes committed against trans individuals. But they would remove the potential for the law to be weaponised against lawful speech. Watch Lord Young below 👇

The Free Speech Union

47,244 views • 5 months ago

Canada's speech crackdown has already begun — speak up while you still can I genuinely believe we are closer to a real speech crackdown in this country than at any point in modern Canadian history. And the craziest part is they’re not even hiding it anymore. While Canadians were distracted by inflation, tariffs and housing costs, the Liberals quietly buried something deeply disturbing on page 145 of the Spring Economic Statement: amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act expanding police powers to search and seize your mail. Your actual physical mail. Letters. Packages. Private correspondence. Read that alongside the Liberals’ censorship agenda, and the pattern becomes impossible to ignore. If Canadians move sensitive conversations off social media and back to texts, phones and old-fashioned mail to avoid government snoops, Carney’s people appear to have anticipated that already. They are tightening control over digital communication while quietly expanding state access to private correspondence at the same time. There is no escape hatch. And before anybody accuses me of paranoia, let me remind you what Trudeau’s government already tried to make law. Bill C-36 would have allowed anonymous complaints over lawful speech. Somebody could accuse you of hateful expression, and you might never properly confront your accuser. The bill proposed fines of up to $20,000 paid directly to the complainant, plus another $50,000 paid to the government itself. Over speech. Not violence. Not terrorism. Speech somebody found offensive online. And then came the truly chilling part: pre-crime restrictions. The Liberals wanted courts to impose curfews, communication bans and house arrest conditions on Canadians who had committed no criminal offence whatsoever, simply because somebody claimed to fear what they might say in the future. Not punishment for criminal conduct. Punishment for predicted wrongthink. Then came Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which proposed even more censorship infrastructure through digital safety commissions, regulators and online speech enforcement bodies. The same activist ecosystem backed every step of it: anti-hate NGOs, censorship advocates, activist academics and taxpayer-funded organizations that increasingly treat free expression itself as the social problem to solve. Those bills died when the election was called. The agenda didn’t. Now Mark Carney’s government is openly signalling it wants another crack at it. Marc Miller admitted Canada is “a couple years behind” Britain and Australia on internet regulation. Britain. The country where police investigate tweets and Facebook posts. Where citizens get questioned over memes and offensive jokes. Where authorities reportedly made more than 12,000 arrests tied to online communications offences in a single year. And instead of treating that as a warning sign, Canada’s political class increasingly talks about it like it’s a model worth copying. That should terrify every Canadian. Because freedom rarely disappears dramatically. It disappears slowly, bureaucratically and under the language of safety and harm reduction. And Carney may actually be more effective at advancing this agenda than Trudeau ever was because Trudeau sounded ideological and flaky. Carney sounds calm, managerial and “evidence-based,” which makes people lower their guard while the state accumulates more power over speech and information. And independent media will obviously be among the first targets. Government-funded outlets like the CBC have very little to fear from censorship systems because they already exist safely inside the approved institutional framework. They support the government because the government supports them. The pressure lands on independent journalists, alternative media and anybody operating outside establishment narratives — because we are skeptics of government. That’s where this road leads: criminalized dissent, self-censorship and a country where ordinary people slowly become afraid to speak honestly because the legal, financial and social consequences become too risky. And once that fear becomes cultural, governments barely need to censor anybody anymore. People start censoring themselves. We need to speak up now, while we still can. Go to
7:30

Canada's speech crackdown has already begun — speak up while you still can I genuinely believe we are closer to a real speech crackdown in this country than at any point in modern Canadian history. And the craziest part is they’re not even hiding it anymore. While Canadians were distracted by inflation, tariffs and housing costs, the Liberals quietly buried something deeply disturbing on page 145 of the Spring Economic Statement: amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act expanding police powers to search and seize your mail. Your actual physical mail. Letters. Packages. Private correspondence. Read that alongside the Liberals’ censorship agenda, and the pattern becomes impossible to ignore. If Canadians move sensitive conversations off social media and back to texts, phones and old-fashioned mail to avoid government snoops, Carney’s people appear to have anticipated that already. They are tightening control over digital communication while quietly expanding state access to private correspondence at the same time. There is no escape hatch. And before anybody accuses me of paranoia, let me remind you what Trudeau’s government already tried to make law. Bill C-36 would have allowed anonymous complaints over lawful speech. Somebody could accuse you of hateful expression, and you might never properly confront your accuser. The bill proposed fines of up to $20,000 paid directly to the complainant, plus another $50,000 paid to the government itself. Over speech. Not violence. Not terrorism. Speech somebody found offensive online. And then came the truly chilling part: pre-crime restrictions. The Liberals wanted courts to impose curfews, communication bans and house arrest conditions on Canadians who had committed no criminal offence whatsoever, simply because somebody claimed to fear what they might say in the future. Not punishment for criminal conduct. Punishment for predicted wrongthink. Then came Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which proposed even more censorship infrastructure through digital safety commissions, regulators and online speech enforcement bodies. The same activist ecosystem backed every step of it: anti-hate NGOs, censorship advocates, activist academics and taxpayer-funded organizations that increasingly treat free expression itself as the social problem to solve. Those bills died when the election was called. The agenda didn’t. Now Mark Carney’s government is openly signalling it wants another crack at it. Marc Miller admitted Canada is “a couple years behind” Britain and Australia on internet regulation. Britain. The country where police investigate tweets and Facebook posts. Where citizens get questioned over memes and offensive jokes. Where authorities reportedly made more than 12,000 arrests tied to online communications offences in a single year. And instead of treating that as a warning sign, Canada’s political class increasingly talks about it like it’s a model worth copying. That should terrify every Canadian. Because freedom rarely disappears dramatically. It disappears slowly, bureaucratically and under the language of safety and harm reduction. And Carney may actually be more effective at advancing this agenda than Trudeau ever was because Trudeau sounded ideological and flaky. Carney sounds calm, managerial and “evidence-based,” which makes people lower their guard while the state accumulates more power over speech and information. And independent media will obviously be among the first targets. Government-funded outlets like the CBC have very little to fear from censorship systems because they already exist safely inside the approved institutional framework. They support the government because the government supports them. The pressure lands on independent journalists, alternative media and anybody operating outside establishment narratives — because we are skeptics of government. That’s where this road leads: criminalized dissent, self-censorship and a country where ordinary people slowly become afraid to speak honestly because the legal, financial and social consequences become too risky. And once that fear becomes cultural, governments barely need to censor anybody anymore. People start censoring themselves. We need to speak up now, while we still can. Go to

Rebel News

13,811 views • 2 months ago

🚨🇺🇸 EXCLUSIVE w/ PATRICK BET-DAVID: “AMERICA IS ONE ASSASSINATION AWAY FROM MARTIAL LAW” Charlie Kirk’s assassination wasn’t just a tragedy – it was a turning point. Patrick Bet-David, one of the most influential voices in U.S. media, says the next act of political violence could break the country apart. “If there’s retaliation… this isn’t America anymore.” In this exclusive interview, PBD opens up about: - Getting a warning from the FBI about being added onto a 50-name hit list - Receiving death threats after his Netanyahu interview - The false theory of Israel being behind Kirk’s assassination - How Elon can maintain free speech while fighting hate - And why Charlie Kirk may be remembered like JFK This wasn’t a hot take. This was a national warning. 01:07 – The shooter left mixed signals: antifascist slogans, 4chan memes, and confusing motivations. 02:16 – “If this guy dies in custody… it opens a can of worms like JFK, MLK, Epstein.” 05:15 – “He didn’t just kill anyone – he took out someone irreplaceable. There is no second Charlie Kirk.” 07:07 – “This wasn’t just political. This was personal. He was the soul of the movement.” 10:27 – What happens if the right retaliates? “You thought COVID was bad – this would be 100x worse.” 11:12 – FBI call: “You’re on a list of 50. Increase your security.” 13:45 – Who benefits from chaos in America? “Start with China.” 18:52 – The case for a “Free Speech Score” on 𝕏: like a FICO score, but for digital responsibility. 21:13 – Elon Musk’s power: “Whatever he does, Facebook and YouTube follow.” 24:55 – How 𝕏 could filter noise: “Don’t ban them – just stop elevating chaos.” 40:10 – Death threats after interviewing Netanyahu. 43:45 – The Israel theory: $150M allegedly offered to Turning Point for pro-Israel PR – Charlie said no. 45:28 – “They called him a Zionist for months. Turns out, he rejected their money.” 47:11 – “Charlie Kirk was more honest than anyone gave him credit for – and it cost him.” 50:03 – Israel assassinated Kirk? “It’s lazy, dangerous, and lowers your credibility to zero.”
59:36

🚨🇺🇸 EXCLUSIVE w/ PATRICK BET-DAVID: “AMERICA IS ONE ASSASSINATION AWAY FROM MARTIAL LAW” Charlie Kirk’s assassination wasn’t just a tragedy – it was a turning point. Patrick Bet-David, one of the most influential voices in U.S. media, says the next act of political violence could break the country apart. “If there’s retaliation… this isn’t America anymore.” In this exclusive interview, PBD opens up about: - Getting a warning from the FBI about being added onto a 50-name hit list - Receiving death threats after his Netanyahu interview - The false theory of Israel being behind Kirk’s assassination - How Elon can maintain free speech while fighting hate - And why Charlie Kirk may be remembered like JFK This wasn’t a hot take. This was a national warning. 01:07 – The shooter left mixed signals: antifascist slogans, 4chan memes, and confusing motivations. 02:16 – “If this guy dies in custody… it opens a can of worms like JFK, MLK, Epstein.” 05:15 – “He didn’t just kill anyone – he took out someone irreplaceable. There is no second Charlie Kirk.” 07:07 – “This wasn’t just political. This was personal. He was the soul of the movement.” 10:27 – What happens if the right retaliates? “You thought COVID was bad – this would be 100x worse.” 11:12 – FBI call: “You’re on a list of 50. Increase your security.” 13:45 – Who benefits from chaos in America? “Start with China.” 18:52 – The case for a “Free Speech Score” on 𝕏: like a FICO score, but for digital responsibility. 21:13 – Elon Musk’s power: “Whatever he does, Facebook and YouTube follow.” 24:55 – How 𝕏 could filter noise: “Don’t ban them – just stop elevating chaos.” 40:10 – Death threats after interviewing Netanyahu. 43:45 – The Israel theory: $150M allegedly offered to Turning Point for pro-Israel PR – Charlie said no. 45:28 – “They called him a Zionist for months. Turns out, he rejected their money.” 47:11 – “Charlie Kirk was more honest than anyone gave him credit for – and it cost him.” 50:03 – Israel assassinated Kirk? “It’s lazy, dangerous, and lowers your credibility to zero.”

Mario Nawfal

5,162,626 views • 10 months ago

The magnificent Russell Broadbent MP on Albanese’s Misinformation & Disinformation (MAD) Bill, "These are truly unprecedented times. In my 25 years in the parliament, I've never seen legislation like it. This is not the country I grew up in, and it's heading in a direction that makes me fear for future generations. Today I urge Australians to stand up and speak out on this bill while they still can." No wonder the kicked him out of the Liberal Party Here’s his full speech ……. Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (16:29): Today is a dark day and one that does not bode well for the nation. The government's so-called combatting misinformation bill marks the beginning of the end for free speech and democracy in Australia. Make no mistake, this bill is another alarming example of overreach and a step towards government tyranny over what we can and cannot discuss. It gives the government unfettered power and control over Australians and their right to exchange ideas, thoughts and opinions. Do you realise what we're risking here? Free speech is the bedrock of democracy, and, as Benjamin Franklin said, there is no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. The bill compels digital platform providers like X and Facebook to censor content that may contribute to serious harm. But who makes that decision? Who's the arbiter of truth? One of the bill's definitions of content that may cause serious harm is content that may cause serious harm to 'public health in Australia, including the efficacy of preventative health measures'. Where have I heard those words before? Why don't they just say misinformation is whatever discussion or debate goes against the narrative of the government of the day? It appears that anyone with a view that's contrary to the government's narrative is going to be in the firing line, just like during the pandemic, when our government, the government I was a part of, censored 4,000 social media posts as misinformation, many of which proved to be absolutely true. I'm not alone in my concerns. In giving feedback on the original exposure draft, the Law Council rightly outlined concerns that digital platform services lack the expertise and resources to identify and distinguish misinformation. The Human Rights Commission, who were missing in action during the pandemic, said the bill didn't strike the right balance between censorship of objectively untrue content and protection of freedom of expression. It seems this final bill hasn't adequately addressed either of these legitimate issues, so why is it being rushed through? I agree with Dr Phillip Altman, a pharmacologist with 40 years experience as a clinical trial and drug regulatory affairs consultant, who believes the biggest pedlars of misinformation during the pandemic were the government and unelected health bureaucrats. That's because they: falsely claimed that the experimental gene based mRNA injections were safe and effective when this was not supported by the available evidence, even from the pharmaceutical companies themselves; falsely claimed the senseless vaccine mandates would help to stop transmission when they were never tested for that; falsely claimed that COVID injections would keep you from getting COVID, getting seriously ill or going to hospital; falsely claimed that masks prevented transmission or infection; falsely claimed it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated; falsely claimed that early treatments were unsuitable; and falsely claimed that there was no clinical evidence to support ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. Worst of all was the vilification and censorship of doctors, academics and scientists who raised the alarm about the safety of the vaccines. But here's the rub: professional news services—mainstream media—are excluded from this bill. So they can lie or cause harm without fear of repercussions. Does anyone see a big red flag here? Based on what I've observed over the last nearly five years, it's the deliberate suppression of information by the media that is most sinister. This includes their failure to disclose the vested interests of so-called health experts, expert committees and institutions providing public advice; their failure to report on the doctors and health practitioners being deregistered and suspended for daring to disagree with the government's narrative; their failure to put pressure on the government to reveal the contractual arrangements with vaccine manufacturers; their failure to ask about the estimated 30,000 excess deaths since the rollout of the jabs; their failure to hold the TGA accountable for failing to investigate the more than 140,000 reports of adverse reactions to the jabs; their failure to highlight the minimal to near zero risk of COVID-19 in the young versus the risk to the elderly; and, most heinously, their failure to cover stories of the vaccine injured, including the thousands of injured Australians who aren't even eligible for compensation because of the illogically narrow eligibility criteria. We're constantly assured that the science is settled and bombarded with propaganda to follow the science, but surely this dogma has no place in science. Surely our doctors, academics and scientists must be free to ask questions about assertions and debate issues. These are truly unprecedented times. In my 25 years in the parliament, I've never seen legislation like it. This is not the country I grew up in, and it's heading in a direction that makes me fear for future generations. Today I urge Australians to stand up and speak out on this bill while they still can.
4:54

The magnificent Russell Broadbent MP on Albanese’s Misinformation & Disinformation (MAD) Bill, "These are truly unprecedented times. In my 25 years in the parliament, I've never seen legislation like it. This is not the country I grew up in, and it's heading in a direction that makes me fear for future generations. Today I urge Australians to stand up and speak out on this bill while they still can." No wonder the kicked him out of the Liberal Party Here’s his full speech ……. Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (16:29): Today is a dark day and one that does not bode well for the nation. The government's so-called combatting misinformation bill marks the beginning of the end for free speech and democracy in Australia. Make no mistake, this bill is another alarming example of overreach and a step towards government tyranny over what we can and cannot discuss. It gives the government unfettered power and control over Australians and their right to exchange ideas, thoughts and opinions. Do you realise what we're risking here? Free speech is the bedrock of democracy, and, as Benjamin Franklin said, there is no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. The bill compels digital platform providers like X and Facebook to censor content that may contribute to serious harm. But who makes that decision? Who's the arbiter of truth? One of the bill's definitions of content that may cause serious harm is content that may cause serious harm to 'public health in Australia, including the efficacy of preventative health measures'. Where have I heard those words before? Why don't they just say misinformation is whatever discussion or debate goes against the narrative of the government of the day? It appears that anyone with a view that's contrary to the government's narrative is going to be in the firing line, just like during the pandemic, when our government, the government I was a part of, censored 4,000 social media posts as misinformation, many of which proved to be absolutely true. I'm not alone in my concerns. In giving feedback on the original exposure draft, the Law Council rightly outlined concerns that digital platform services lack the expertise and resources to identify and distinguish misinformation. The Human Rights Commission, who were missing in action during the pandemic, said the bill didn't strike the right balance between censorship of objectively untrue content and protection of freedom of expression. It seems this final bill hasn't adequately addressed either of these legitimate issues, so why is it being rushed through? I agree with Dr Phillip Altman, a pharmacologist with 40 years experience as a clinical trial and drug regulatory affairs consultant, who believes the biggest pedlars of misinformation during the pandemic were the government and unelected health bureaucrats. That's because they: falsely claimed that the experimental gene based mRNA injections were safe and effective when this was not supported by the available evidence, even from the pharmaceutical companies themselves; falsely claimed the senseless vaccine mandates would help to stop transmission when they were never tested for that; falsely claimed that COVID injections would keep you from getting COVID, getting seriously ill or going to hospital; falsely claimed that masks prevented transmission or infection; falsely claimed it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated; falsely claimed that early treatments were unsuitable; and falsely claimed that there was no clinical evidence to support ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. Worst of all was the vilification and censorship of doctors, academics and scientists who raised the alarm about the safety of the vaccines. But here's the rub: professional news services—mainstream media—are excluded from this bill. So they can lie or cause harm without fear of repercussions. Does anyone see a big red flag here? Based on what I've observed over the last nearly five years, it's the deliberate suppression of information by the media that is most sinister. This includes their failure to disclose the vested interests of so-called health experts, expert committees and institutions providing public advice; their failure to report on the doctors and health practitioners being deregistered and suspended for daring to disagree with the government's narrative; their failure to put pressure on the government to reveal the contractual arrangements with vaccine manufacturers; their failure to ask about the estimated 30,000 excess deaths since the rollout of the jabs; their failure to hold the TGA accountable for failing to investigate the more than 140,000 reports of adverse reactions to the jabs; their failure to highlight the minimal to near zero risk of COVID-19 in the young versus the risk to the elderly; and, most heinously, their failure to cover stories of the vaccine injured, including the thousands of injured Australians who aren't even eligible for compensation because of the illogically narrow eligibility criteria. We're constantly assured that the science is settled and bombarded with propaganda to follow the science, but surely this dogma has no place in science. Surely our doctors, academics and scientists must be free to ask questions about assertions and debate issues. These are truly unprecedented times. In my 25 years in the parliament, I've never seen legislation like it. This is not the country I grew up in, and it's heading in a direction that makes me fear for future generations. Today I urge Australians to stand up and speak out on this bill while they still can.

Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education

146,838 views • 1 year ago

When Asked About Girls’ Safety, Andy Burnham Looked Away Make no mistake about what you witnessed last week. Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester and Labour’s would-be Prime Minister, was asked a simple question. Would he put the safety of girls before the fear of upsetting people. He did not answer it. What followed was his full ten-minute monologue. This was not leadership under pressure. It was evasion under scrutiny. A stage-managed performance in a familiar setting, chaired sympathetically, designed to avoid the one thing that mattered. A clear answer. So look instead at what Andy Burnham actually did. His defence rests on commissioning the “largest, longest-running inquiry.” What he does not say is that from the outset; - it had no power to compel evidence - Its terms of reference were set by institutions facing allegations - Even the review team depended on Oldham Council and Greater Manchester Police to decide which documents they were allowed to see. He then dismisses credible concerns about Oldham as “rumours.” Yet his own Assurance Review later confirmed that children in Oldham had been groomed and gang raped. Every case his experts examined confirmed this. Even then, the full extent of that abuse was obscured. To this day, we do not know how many little White girls in Oldham were dragged off the streets and gang raped by Pakistani men. Despite knowing both the truth of those concerns and the limits of his own review, Burnham still refused to call for a national inquiry that could have exposed who failed these children and why. Instead, he and his Labour Party allies hid behind a finding of “no evidence of a cover-up,” while having explicitly ruled out investigating whether a cover-up had taken place. Only years later, after relentless campaigning and global attention forced the issue back into the open, did Burnham finally support national action. And when confronted with this record, he does not answer it. He accuses his critics of spreading hate. A full article will follow. If you still need convincing, you will then understand why this would-be Prime Minister refuses to face scrutiny in the open. He knows exactly what would happen if he were challenged directly on what he was part of. So let there be no ambiguity. The allegation facing Andy Burnham is his role in the cover-up of the industrial-scale gang rape of the nation’s children. Name the time and place Andy Burnham. Face me. Face the millions who want to know who is telling the truth. ________ I’m Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. Before that, I spent over a decade safeguarding children and protecting communities from extremists. My work is free because the truth must circulate. But truth without numbers is easy to crush. The government does not fear facts. It fears scale. Starmer and the Labour Party fear thousands reading, sharing, and backing the same work because numbers mean witnesses, pressure, and consequences. That’s why I am blacklisted by the legacy media. That's why this matters. 🔴 Subscribe to the newsletter. It’s free. Every subscriber is a number they can’t erase. Every reader widens the circle they can’t control. 👉 Subscribe here: If you can afford it, please support for 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Not for perks. Not for access. But because numbers with backing become power. A few supporters can be ignored. Thousands cannot. This is how this campaign survive. This is how we see this through. This is how voices like ours stops being managed and starts being feared. 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No sponsors. No parties. No institutions to lean on. Just numbers. Growing fast enough that covering this up becomes impossible. We don’t need everyone. We need you. – Raja Miah MBE
9:59

When Asked About Girls’ Safety, Andy Burnham Looked Away Make no mistake about what you witnessed last week. Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester and Labour’s would-be Prime Minister, was asked a simple question. Would he put the safety of girls before the fear of upsetting people. He did not answer it. What followed was his full ten-minute monologue. This was not leadership under pressure. It was evasion under scrutiny. A stage-managed performance in a familiar setting, chaired sympathetically, designed to avoid the one thing that mattered. A clear answer. So look instead at what Andy Burnham actually did. His defence rests on commissioning the “largest, longest-running inquiry.” What he does not say is that from the outset; - it had no power to compel evidence - Its terms of reference were set by institutions facing allegations - Even the review team depended on Oldham Council and Greater Manchester Police to decide which documents they were allowed to see. He then dismisses credible concerns about Oldham as “rumours.” Yet his own Assurance Review later confirmed that children in Oldham had been groomed and gang raped. Every case his experts examined confirmed this. Even then, the full extent of that abuse was obscured. To this day, we do not know how many little White girls in Oldham were dragged off the streets and gang raped by Pakistani men. Despite knowing both the truth of those concerns and the limits of his own review, Burnham still refused to call for a national inquiry that could have exposed who failed these children and why. Instead, he and his Labour Party allies hid behind a finding of “no evidence of a cover-up,” while having explicitly ruled out investigating whether a cover-up had taken place. Only years later, after relentless campaigning and global attention forced the issue back into the open, did Burnham finally support national action. And when confronted with this record, he does not answer it. He accuses his critics of spreading hate. A full article will follow. If you still need convincing, you will then understand why this would-be Prime Minister refuses to face scrutiny in the open. He knows exactly what would happen if he were challenged directly on what he was part of. So let there be no ambiguity. The allegation facing Andy Burnham is his role in the cover-up of the industrial-scale gang rape of the nation’s children. Name the time and place Andy Burnham. Face me. Face the millions who want to know who is telling the truth. ________ I’m Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. Before that, I spent over a decade safeguarding children and protecting communities from extremists. My work is free because the truth must circulate. But truth without numbers is easy to crush. The government does not fear facts. It fears scale. Starmer and the Labour Party fear thousands reading, sharing, and backing the same work because numbers mean witnesses, pressure, and consequences. That’s why I am blacklisted by the legacy media. That's why this matters. 🔴 Subscribe to the newsletter. It’s free. Every subscriber is a number they can’t erase. Every reader widens the circle they can’t control. 👉 Subscribe here: If you can afford it, please support for 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Not for perks. Not for access. But because numbers with backing become power. A few supporters can be ignored. Thousands cannot. This is how this campaign survive. This is how we see this through. This is how voices like ours stops being managed and starts being feared. 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No sponsors. No parties. No institutions to lean on. Just numbers. Growing fast enough that covering this up becomes impossible. We don’t need everyone. We need you. – Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

85,206 views • 6 months ago

Watch Ben Shapiro Tear into Censorship Cartel in Fiery Congressional Testimony “We're in the midst of a trust crisis in the world of media, which is because so many in the legacy media have lied in order to preserve left-leaning narratives. To take just the most recent example, we were told by the legacy media that President Biden was just fine. For years, anyone who questioned his health and mental fitness was trafficking in cheap fakes. And then President Biden went out and engaged in a full-scale mental collapse on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people. “So we can see why Americans, at least Americans who are not Democrats, do not trust the media. The question isn't really why the legacy media have lost Americans' trust. We know that answer. The question is why, despite that loss of trust, the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market. And the answer is simple. There is, in fact, an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media, advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands. “Let me explain how this works. When a conservative competitor to the legacy media arises, members of that legacy media and their political allies rush to paint such competitors as dangerous. The commentator Kara Swisher of the New York Times, for example, told the head of YouTube that my videos at Daily Wire were a gateway drug that would lead children, including her own teenage son, to watch neo-Nazi content. Nevermind the yarmulke. “Elected Democrats pick up that same messaging. In 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein told lawyers at Facebook, Google, and Twitter, ‘You created these platforms and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it, or we will.’ Social media companies react to incentive structures, including threats. They have responded by adopting the standards of third-party, left-wing informational safety groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM. GARM purportedly sets brand safety standards, objective standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising. “In reality, GARM acts as a cartel. Its members account for 90% of ad spending in the United States, almost a trillion dollars. In other words, if you're not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it's nearly impossible to run an ad-based business. And if you're not following their preferred political narratives, the ones that Kara Swisher and Dianne Feinstein would follow, you will not be deemed brand safe. Your business will be throttled. We at Daily Wire have experienced this firsthand. In 2017, after Senator Feinstein made her threats to bring the weight of government down on social media platforms, the Daily Wire YouTube channel saw a 1000% increase in content enforcements over a two-year period. Since 2021, after Democrat officials further turned up the heat on social media companies, my personal Facebook page has seen an over 80% drop in impressions. “Or take Joe Rogan. When Joe said that he had taken Ivermectin after getting COVID, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki pressured Spotify to take action, stating, ‘We want every platform to be doing more to call out missing disinformation while also uplifting accurate information.’ Spotify complied. Spotify, of course, works with GARM. “So what are the brand safety standards that GARM uses? The standards begin with inarguable things that we've heard from the other witnesses, like preventing the distribution of child sexual abuse material or stopping terrorism. But GARM doesn't draw the line at what is criminal, abusive, or dangerous. Their standards also include restrictions on hate speech, harassment, misinformation, or, my personal favorite, insensitive, irresponsible, and harmful treatment of debated, sensitive social issues. Those criteria are highly subjective in theory, and they are purely partisan in practice. For example, last year, Daily Wire host Matt Walsh was fully demonetized on YouTube, a GARM member. Why? For quote-unquote misgendering, which to GARM is to say that men are not women. Perfectly obvious facts now run afoul of GARM's censorship standards. “Companies targeted by GARM, like the Daily Wire, Breitbart, Fox News, and so many others, reach hundreds of millions of people with opinions and beliefs long established as within the mainstream of American conservative thought. GARM and its members have no respect for the beliefs of those people. They would like them marginalized or squashed. It's time to stand up for the First Amendment in this Congress. “Congress can do so in two ways. First, Congress must investigate the informal and perhaps formal arrangements between censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies. The Daily Wire has already filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department for allegedly doing just this. Second, Congress can itself stop engaging in violation of free speech principles. Two weeks ago, writing a dissent in Murthy versus Missouri, Justice Alito condemned what he called sophisticated and coercive government campaigns against free speech. “Members of this committee have engaged in precisely such campaigns. When Congressman Schiff speaks about targeting social media companies that must be, quote, ‘pulled and dragged into this era of corporate responsibility because they are too tolerant of misinformation,’ he knows what he is doing. He is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congresswoman Jayapal blames social media for placing America at the precipice of a democratic crisis and calls on them to target what they deem hate groups, she also knows what she is doing. She is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congressman Hank Johnson says, quote, ‘We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,’ he also knows what he is doing. “We all know what these government actors, what some people in this room are doing. You're using the tacit threat of government action to compel private companies to throttle viewpoints you don't particularly like. The First Amendment was not designed to enable workarounds by elected officials. It was directed at Congress, at you. And you're abdicating your fundamental duty when you exert pressure on private companies to censor speech. Some in this room have been doing just that for years. We in the non-legacy media have been feeling the effects. In the name of the Constitution and the name of democracy, this should stop.” Ben Shapiro
5:04

Watch Ben Shapiro Tear into Censorship Cartel in Fiery Congressional Testimony “We're in the midst of a trust crisis in the world of media, which is because so many in the legacy media have lied in order to preserve left-leaning narratives. To take just the most recent example, we were told by the legacy media that President Biden was just fine. For years, anyone who questioned his health and mental fitness was trafficking in cheap fakes. And then President Biden went out and engaged in a full-scale mental collapse on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people. “So we can see why Americans, at least Americans who are not Democrats, do not trust the media. The question isn't really why the legacy media have lost Americans' trust. We know that answer. The question is why, despite that loss of trust, the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market. And the answer is simple. There is, in fact, an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media, advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands. “Let me explain how this works. When a conservative competitor to the legacy media arises, members of that legacy media and their political allies rush to paint such competitors as dangerous. The commentator Kara Swisher of the New York Times, for example, told the head of YouTube that my videos at Daily Wire were a gateway drug that would lead children, including her own teenage son, to watch neo-Nazi content. Nevermind the yarmulke. “Elected Democrats pick up that same messaging. In 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein told lawyers at Facebook, Google, and Twitter, ‘You created these platforms and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it, or we will.’ Social media companies react to incentive structures, including threats. They have responded by adopting the standards of third-party, left-wing informational safety groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM. GARM purportedly sets brand safety standards, objective standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising. “In reality, GARM acts as a cartel. Its members account for 90% of ad spending in the United States, almost a trillion dollars. In other words, if you're not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it's nearly impossible to run an ad-based business. And if you're not following their preferred political narratives, the ones that Kara Swisher and Dianne Feinstein would follow, you will not be deemed brand safe. Your business will be throttled. We at Daily Wire have experienced this firsthand. In 2017, after Senator Feinstein made her threats to bring the weight of government down on social media platforms, the Daily Wire YouTube channel saw a 1000% increase in content enforcements over a two-year period. Since 2021, after Democrat officials further turned up the heat on social media companies, my personal Facebook page has seen an over 80% drop in impressions. “Or take Joe Rogan. When Joe said that he had taken Ivermectin after getting COVID, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki pressured Spotify to take action, stating, ‘We want every platform to be doing more to call out missing disinformation while also uplifting accurate information.’ Spotify complied. Spotify, of course, works with GARM. “So what are the brand safety standards that GARM uses? The standards begin with inarguable things that we've heard from the other witnesses, like preventing the distribution of child sexual abuse material or stopping terrorism. But GARM doesn't draw the line at what is criminal, abusive, or dangerous. Their standards also include restrictions on hate speech, harassment, misinformation, or, my personal favorite, insensitive, irresponsible, and harmful treatment of debated, sensitive social issues. Those criteria are highly subjective in theory, and they are purely partisan in practice. For example, last year, Daily Wire host Matt Walsh was fully demonetized on YouTube, a GARM member. Why? For quote-unquote misgendering, which to GARM is to say that men are not women. Perfectly obvious facts now run afoul of GARM's censorship standards. “Companies targeted by GARM, like the Daily Wire, Breitbart, Fox News, and so many others, reach hundreds of millions of people with opinions and beliefs long established as within the mainstream of American conservative thought. GARM and its members have no respect for the beliefs of those people. They would like them marginalized or squashed. It's time to stand up for the First Amendment in this Congress. “Congress can do so in two ways. First, Congress must investigate the informal and perhaps formal arrangements between censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies. The Daily Wire has already filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department for allegedly doing just this. Second, Congress can itself stop engaging in violation of free speech principles. Two weeks ago, writing a dissent in Murthy versus Missouri, Justice Alito condemned what he called sophisticated and coercive government campaigns against free speech. “Members of this committee have engaged in precisely such campaigns. When Congressman Schiff speaks about targeting social media companies that must be, quote, ‘pulled and dragged into this era of corporate responsibility because they are too tolerant of misinformation,’ he knows what he is doing. He is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congresswoman Jayapal blames social media for placing America at the precipice of a democratic crisis and calls on them to target what they deem hate groups, she also knows what she is doing. She is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congressman Hank Johnson says, quote, ‘We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,’ he also knows what he is doing. “We all know what these government actors, what some people in this room are doing. You're using the tacit threat of government action to compel private companies to throttle viewpoints you don't particularly like. The First Amendment was not designed to enable workarounds by elected officials. It was directed at Congress, at you. And you're abdicating your fundamental duty when you exert pressure on private companies to censor speech. Some in this room have been doing just that for years. We in the non-legacy media have been feeling the effects. In the name of the Constitution and the name of democracy, this should stop.” Ben Shapiro

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

38,158,574 views • 2 years ago

William Cooper consistently taught that the occult Mystery Religion used biblical teachings and events, manipulated and twisted them into gnostic and occult teachings and practices. This is what is confusing you. He never once said the Bible isn't the true word of God. "The churches have been infiltrated by the adepts of the occult. They don’t want you to know the truth of the scriptures; they want you to follow their version, which keeps you in chains." (The Hour of the Time, Mystery Babylon series, Episode #12, "The Christian Religion," aired April 1993) "The Bible, as it’s been handed down to us, has been interpreted through the lens of those who wish to keep the truth hidden. The mystery religions have always used the scriptures of the world to veil their secrets, presenting one story to the profane and another to the initiated." (The Hour of the Time, Mystery Babylon series, Episode #10, "The Lost Light," aired April 1993) "The mystery schools, the secret societies, have always controlled the religions of the world... They have infiltrated and changed the truth into a lie to control the masses." (The Hour of the Time, Mystery Babylon series, Episode #6, "The New World Order and the United States of America," aired March 1993) "In the Gnostic tradition, Lucifer is the light bearer, the one who gave man knowledge and freed him from the tyranny of an unjust God. This is the core belief of the mystery schools, and they’ve woven this into the fabric of every major religion to deceive the world." (The Hour of the Time, Mystery Babylon series, Episode #3, "Lucifer Worship," aired February 1993) "The religion they practice is called, in its generic term, Gnosticism, the religion that worships the intellect, the mind, and believes that through the intellect, through the mind, through knowledge, that man can become God." (The Hour of the Time, Mystery Babylon series, Episode #2, "The Sun of God," aired February 1993) This is where we get the fasle doctrine of the works based salvation from. The lie that says you can get yourself to heaven on your own merit and good deeds. Particularly taught within Jesuit pagan catholic teachings but also prevelant in just about every other false religion. You can become as gods in the sense of attaining perfection through your own works and good deeds or sacriments or confession booths or taking communion etc. This is the main teaching of the occult religion. Ones own ascension. Illumination. It is in complete contrast to the truth of God's Word. The truth is, we are all sinners who deserve Hell, as one lie removes your perfection. David said even the thought of foolishness is sin. If you could do it on your own, then we wouldn't need Jesus. His death and sacrifice and payment and atonement for your sins would have been in vain. John 3 :16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life Acts 16: 30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Romans 6 :23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. A gift is free. You can't work for it and you can't earn it. That gift is eternal life through faith on Jesus Christ. The gift is eternal. Meaning, once you have it through faith, it lasts forever. One time is all it takes. It is a gift not of deserving, but of mercy and grace. A full pardon we do not deserve. The payment was made through the perfection of Jesus keeping the entirety of the law. Something we could never do. Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Your enemy's main belief system is Luciferian at it's core foundation. To become as gods is their religion. This is the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. This is why the Skull and Bones number is 322 referencing Genesis 3:22: Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" "Being God or Godlike is, literally, a Luciferian pursuit that originates from the Garden of Eden Itself. As we can see, the pursuit of being one's own god is nothing new under the sun. The idea of apotheosis or self-deification." For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:5 "The Evolution of man into superman -- was always the purpose of the ancient mysteries and the real purpose to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform into a god-like quality." – W. L. WILMSHURT, The Meaning of Masonry, 2016 Edition Pg. 30 "This ancient mysteries doctrine is taught in every mystery tradition, secret society, and every occult organization teaches the Luciferian Philosophy found in Genesis 3:5." – William Cooper The occult manipulation of events, times, seasons, days, is extremely prevelant. Somehow Satan has convinced everyone that it is the other way around and that the occult created the events and words of the Bible, not simply that they stole and twisted and perverted it. Stay vigilant. The truth is one of spiritual means. Salvation is the true redpill. That is what they are hiding from you. Faith alone on Jesus Christ and not on yourself. You can choose to believe (have faith) on Christ or choose yourself and your own works and deeds. You cannot choose both. It is either grace or works. But the choice is yours. Kane and Abel had the same choice and Cain brought the offering the Lord did not ask for. The offering of his own works, the crops of his own field, and the Lords wrath was kindled. Abels offering was the firstlings and the best of his flock. A sacrifice of faith. A sacrifice of blood. Picturing the firstborn of God, Jesus, His sacrifice for our sins. This was acceptable in Gods eyes. Understand my words. Heed my warning. Hebrews 11: 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. I can assure you many will stand in front of God bragging about how great they were and he will remind them of this verse: Matthew 7 22-23 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
33:41

William Cooper consistently taught that the occult Mystery Religion used biblical teachings and events, manipulated and twisted them into gnostic and occult teachings and practices. This is what is confusing you. He never once said the Bible isn't the true word of God. "The churches have been infiltrated by the adepts of the occult. They don’t want you to know the truth of the scriptures; they want you to follow their version, which keeps you in chains." (The Hour of the Time, Mystery Babylon series, Episode #12, "The Christian Religion," aired April 1993) "The Bible, as it’s been handed down to us, has been interpreted through the lens of those who wish to keep the truth hidden. The mystery religions have always used the scriptures of the world to veil their secrets, presenting one story to the profane and another to the initiated." (The Hour of the Time, Mystery Babylon series, Episode #10, "The Lost Light," aired April 1993) "The mystery schools, the secret societies, have always controlled the religions of the world... They have infiltrated and changed the truth into a lie to control the masses." (The Hour of the Time, Mystery Babylon series, Episode #6, "The New World Order and the United States of America," aired March 1993) "In the Gnostic tradition, Lucifer is the light bearer, the one who gave man knowledge and freed him from the tyranny of an unjust God. This is the core belief of the mystery schools, and they’ve woven this into the fabric of every major religion to deceive the world." (The Hour of the Time, Mystery Babylon series, Episode #3, "Lucifer Worship," aired February 1993) "The religion they practice is called, in its generic term, Gnosticism, the religion that worships the intellect, the mind, and believes that through the intellect, through the mind, through knowledge, that man can become God." (The Hour of the Time, Mystery Babylon series, Episode #2, "The Sun of God," aired February 1993) This is where we get the fasle doctrine of the works based salvation from. The lie that says you can get yourself to heaven on your own merit and good deeds. Particularly taught within Jesuit pagan catholic teachings but also prevelant in just about every other false religion. You can become as gods in the sense of attaining perfection through your own works and good deeds or sacriments or confession booths or taking communion etc. This is the main teaching of the occult religion. Ones own ascension. Illumination. It is in complete contrast to the truth of God's Word. The truth is, we are all sinners who deserve Hell, as one lie removes your perfection. David said even the thought of foolishness is sin. If you could do it on your own, then we wouldn't need Jesus. His death and sacrifice and payment and atonement for your sins would have been in vain. John 3 :16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life Acts 16: 30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Romans 6 :23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. A gift is free. You can't work for it and you can't earn it. That gift is eternal life through faith on Jesus Christ. The gift is eternal. Meaning, once you have it through faith, it lasts forever. One time is all it takes. It is a gift not of deserving, but of mercy and grace. A full pardon we do not deserve. The payment was made through the perfection of Jesus keeping the entirety of the law. Something we could never do. Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Your enemy's main belief system is Luciferian at it's core foundation. To become as gods is their religion. This is the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. This is why the Skull and Bones number is 322 referencing Genesis 3:22: Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" "Being God or Godlike is, literally, a Luciferian pursuit that originates from the Garden of Eden Itself. As we can see, the pursuit of being one's own god is nothing new under the sun. The idea of apotheosis or self-deification." For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:5 "The Evolution of man into superman -- was always the purpose of the ancient mysteries and the real purpose to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform into a god-like quality." – W. L. WILMSHURT, The Meaning of Masonry, 2016 Edition Pg. 30 "This ancient mysteries doctrine is taught in every mystery tradition, secret society, and every occult organization teaches the Luciferian Philosophy found in Genesis 3:5." – William Cooper The occult manipulation of events, times, seasons, days, is extremely prevelant. Somehow Satan has convinced everyone that it is the other way around and that the occult created the events and words of the Bible, not simply that they stole and twisted and perverted it. Stay vigilant. The truth is one of spiritual means. Salvation is the true redpill. That is what they are hiding from you. Faith alone on Jesus Christ and not on yourself. You can choose to believe (have faith) on Christ or choose yourself and your own works and deeds. You cannot choose both. It is either grace or works. But the choice is yours. Kane and Abel had the same choice and Cain brought the offering the Lord did not ask for. The offering of his own works, the crops of his own field, and the Lords wrath was kindled. Abels offering was the firstlings and the best of his flock. A sacrifice of faith. A sacrifice of blood. Picturing the firstborn of God, Jesus, His sacrifice for our sins. This was acceptable in Gods eyes. Understand my words. Heed my warning. Hebrews 11: 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. I can assure you many will stand in front of God bragging about how great they were and he will remind them of this verse: Matthew 7 22-23 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Redpill Drifter

44,212 views • 1 year ago

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. “Do you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?” Who is Martin Kulldorff? He’s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the world’s leading health organizations. What he said was that “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.” Natural immunity. Is it a myth — a “conspiracy theory” — that once you have been sick from a virus, then you won’t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, we’ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. “The same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,” wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorff’s tweet. “Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine,” read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasn’t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a “Trends Blacklist.” Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didn’t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a “Democracy Shield” program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose “chat control” so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. We’ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. It’s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. They’re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who don’t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isn’t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call “researchers” to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct “fact checks” to serve as “trusted flaggers.” These “trusted flaggers” demand censorship by social media platforms. It’s all done in secret. They’re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the “Virality Project,” they said they wanted to censor “true stories” of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might “fuel hesitancy.” In other words, they want to control your behavior. They don’t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isn’t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I don’t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that would’ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these “researcher” censors. I’m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. They’re really not interested in censoring “misinformation.’ They’re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, it’s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebody’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.” Google then removed that content from that person’s Google Drive. You don’t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanford’s “Virality Project” flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldn’t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didn’t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. It’s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them “Bu alumni.” They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI — arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and can’t do — resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. It’s from the director of policy at Twitter. “We have seen a sustained if uncoordinated” — supposedly — “effort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They’re probing and pushing everywhere they can.” The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop, which showed his family’s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . “The FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,” Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, “and they were like, ‘Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. There’s about to be some kind of dump.’” In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. It’s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. It’s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social media’s top censorship officials, known as “trust and safety officials,” how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that we’re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, “You should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.” In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as “pre-bunking,” and it’s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitter’s trust and safety censorship official said it didn’t violate its terms of service. There’s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that you’re allowed to report on information that’s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. It’s not that we didn’t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Google’s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilková, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a “pro-Kremlin website” was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, “Where’s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.” Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Václav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, “We don’t even know what the ‘Voice of Europe’ is.” Another Czech politician said, “How could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they weren’t on any list.” Another said, “If they’re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europe’s journalists inside?” Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as “trusted flaggers.” Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, “My sense is that given we’ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesn’t seem like a great place for us to be.” Data flows. What’s he talking about? He’s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didn’t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Liberté. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!
30:00

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. “Do you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?” Who is Martin Kulldorff? He’s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the world’s leading health organizations. What he said was that “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.” Natural immunity. Is it a myth — a “conspiracy theory” — that once you have been sick from a virus, then you won’t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, we’ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. “The same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,” wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorff’s tweet. “Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine,” read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasn’t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a “Trends Blacklist.” Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didn’t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a “Democracy Shield” program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose “chat control” so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. We’ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. It’s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. They’re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who don’t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isn’t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call “researchers” to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct “fact checks” to serve as “trusted flaggers.” These “trusted flaggers” demand censorship by social media platforms. It’s all done in secret. They’re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the “Virality Project,” they said they wanted to censor “true stories” of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might “fuel hesitancy.” In other words, they want to control your behavior. They don’t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isn’t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I don’t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that would’ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these “researcher” censors. I’m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. They’re really not interested in censoring “misinformation.’ They’re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, it’s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebody’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.” Google then removed that content from that person’s Google Drive. You don’t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanford’s “Virality Project” flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldn’t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didn’t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. It’s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them “Bu alumni.” They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI — arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and can’t do — resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. It’s from the director of policy at Twitter. “We have seen a sustained if uncoordinated” — supposedly — “effort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They’re probing and pushing everywhere they can.” The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop, which showed his family’s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . “The FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,” Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, “and they were like, ‘Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. There’s about to be some kind of dump.’” In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. It’s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. It’s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social media’s top censorship officials, known as “trust and safety officials,” how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that we’re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, “You should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.” In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as “pre-bunking,” and it’s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitter’s trust and safety censorship official said it didn’t violate its terms of service. There’s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that you’re allowed to report on information that’s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. It’s not that we didn’t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Google’s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilková, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a “pro-Kremlin website” was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, “Where’s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.” Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Václav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, “We don’t even know what the ‘Voice of Europe’ is.” Another Czech politician said, “How could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they weren’t on any list.” Another said, “If they’re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europe’s journalists inside?” Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as “trusted flaggers.” Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, “My sense is that given we’ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesn’t seem like a great place for us to be.” Data flows. What’s he talking about? He’s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didn’t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Liberté. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!

Michael Shellenberger

174,749 views • 6 months ago

Dumbing Down II "By Faith, this is the last rent I am paying as a single lady. If you support me to pay this rent, by the grace of God, this time next year, I will be in my husband's house." is back begging for support to pay another rent. Not because God didn't bring eligible suitors her way, but because her PASTOR has replaced the Holy Spirit in her life. Pastors ruin a lot of destinies when they insist on playing God instead of their primary role as destiny guides. Many members have submitted their free will to their pastors, giving their pastors the power that God himself didn't take from us from the dawn of creation. When you take the ability of the individual to act as a free agent in the name of religion, you reduce him or her to a puppet and yourself to a puppeteer. You want to pull the strings of the lives of thousands of born-again Christians at the same time while rendering them useless to follow their paths in Christ and grow into mature sons. I was at a Church in Anthony village about three years ago to minister, and I met this young man who was schooled at a very prestigious university in the USA. He was the in-house IT consultant of the church, and the pastor placed him on a monthly stipend while he was working for God. It was the Pastor who introduced the young man to me while boasting that God had given him the most capable hands to help him in ministry. I asked him if he had any Python, Java, cloud engineering, data management, digital marketing, coding, or similar tasks available for the young man in the church. He said no. I said, "You are giving this young man the job that any young school leaver who is proficient in computer appreciation can do, and you don't see it as limiting his capabilities and rendering his skills obsolete?" You would rather boast that you are ruining a destiny to build up your own profile rather than set this young man on the path of excellence? Did God call him into ministry as a preacher? Is he understudying you in preparation for his own ministry? The pastor said, "No, I plan that as the church expands, he will head our digital infrastructure and position us for the future." I said, "He can do that as a consultant or even as a member, he shouldn't be doing that while you are paying him 100,000 Naira a month. He should be out there, flying with his peers and earning in dollars! The only exception is if the Lord has called him to be a preacher and he is understudying you as your personal assistant, as led by the Lord as part of his season of preparation. Anything other than that is injurious to his destiny!" The pastor had never seen it that way When I was done ministering in the church, the young man hugged me and thanked me profusely. He said his mother sent him to the pastor when he returned from the USA and the pastor immediately told him that God had need of him in the ministry or he would die without fulfilling his purpose. Why do pastors do this? I have another case from the Northern part of Nigeria. A young lady reached out to me seeking clarity regarding her future She said her Apostle told her she has been raised by God to sing in his church choir, but she is a medical doctor by training and desires to further her studies abroad Every time she raised the issue with the Apostle, he shut her down and told her she was struggling with the will of God "Why can't you just submit to God and serve in the choir and watch as God will take your voice all over the world as this ministry grows?" The young lady said she knows she has a good voice and sings very well as one who is full of the Holy Spirit, but she does not want to be "Sinach", she wants to fulfil her dream of practising as a Pediatrician. She was wary of incurring the wrath and curse of the Apostle, however, and did not know how to extricate herself from the situation. The apostle did not see anything wrong with his actions because he was a user of people who believed that in order to fulfill his own desire to become a big ministry, others could not thrive and grow in their visions and ministries as ordained by God. This is witchcraft. It is not of God. Jesus didn't lead his disciples this way. Insecurity is the undoing of many African so-called Pastors and Spiritual leaders, and they hide behind the illusion of divinity to put others in bondage. I experienced this firsthand as a young graduate, so I understand how a pastor trying to build his ministry could see the potential in a young man or woman and try very hard to turn such a person into servants and house helps in the name of discipling them or training them for kingdom relevance You graduate from the University and join the labour force, you apply for many jobs, and at a point, you tell yourself it is important to seek supernatural guidance in your quest to fulfil destiny Somebody somewhere tells you about a church or a ministry, you join, and you are convinced the church is good. You also tell your friends, and they join. But you are all fresh graduates who are heading into the future one way or the other, but this pastor wants you to be his flock. To him, his church of ten members had suddenly become a church of 30 members because of you guys, and he wants to keep the numbers growing, so he begins to give you prophesies that were not of God but with the aim of keeping you in the fold for as long as possible. He told young graduates who ought to go for NYSC that God is telling him they should give it up for service to God in the vineyard. The mother of two of the ladies in the fellowship, whose daughters told that the pastor told them not to go for NYSC, quickly removed them from the fellowship before the seed of corruption being planted by this pastor would bear fruit The others also left as soon as they could gather their wit People who you ought to guide on their path in sincerity ran as far as they could from you based on how you chose to manipulate rather than nurture them. A married woman whose husband worked abroad was a trained secretary, and while her husband was abroad, catering to the needs of the family, he begged her to stop working so that she could focus on raising the children. She was raising five children all by herself, and combining this with a job seemed a bit too much at the time. One of the vital institutions for raising godly children was the church This woman attended church regularly with her children and even volunteered to spend any free time she had typing the pastor's sermons, Sunday School pamphlets, handouts, books, journals, and other church reports and documents She was not officially employed to do the work; she just saw that she could take some of the secretarial duties on during her downtime, and she did so with all sincerity. The church enjoyed her free services for five years until the pastor forgot completely that she was doing the church a favour One day, the woman came to church to tell the pastor that her husband would be returning home to visit the family, and she would not be available for a few days because she had to pick her husband up from the airport and ensure that he settled in properly. Unfortunately, that weekend was the weekend of the church's anniversary, and the pastor had a lot of secretarial work to do. He told the woman God said she should pick one. Heaven or marriage. He said if she goes to pick her husband from the airport, she has chosen the world and forsaken the Lord. The woman wept all the way home, It was not the thank you, thou faithful servant report she had worked day and night for many years to get that she received. She went to pick her husband from the airport and distanced herself from any church founded by any individual after that experience. She said the ambition of church founders requires that they use people to build, even though they lacked the resources to pay or compensate such people, so they resort to blackmail, coercion, lies, fake prophesies, promises, and manipulations to get things done while keeping their followers on a leash. Followers are also enablers as they refuse to read the Bible for themselves and walk in the light of the word of God. No one should be able to take you captive in the name of God, Jesus, all the angels, or any form of miracle if you know the word of God. The word of God is profitable to make one wise, and therefore, anyone who knows the word of God cannot fall victim to any false doctrine, teaching, spiritual manipulations, or lies. All the false teachings of someone being a covering for someone else came from these manipulative narratives, and believers should be wise to them. I have seen a pastor declare that his church is the only church in Africa that is licensed by God to take people to heaven, and some members believed him. The day he said that, all his members ought to laugh, pick up their Bibles, and leave without looking back. Self-aggrandisement has become the order of the day in some churches, the pastor sells himself as the be-all and end-all of the member's spiritual enlightenment, and the members sheepishly surrender their eyes of their understanding to him or her. He or she must determine where they work, whom they marry, who they associate with, whose music they must listen to, and whose sermons they must hear. If they want to travel, he must see if the road is clear on their behalf, if they want to build a house, he must approve, if he does not dedicate their baby, the baby is illegitimate. This is not the faith Christ or the Apostles died for. Jesus died that you might be free of religion. Christianity is not a religion, it is the opposite. It is individualistic and determined by the faith and belief system of the one rather than the many. Salvation, therefore, is a personal affair, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit is also a personal affair Religion is the opium of the masses, and Christianity is the salvation of the individual and his or her walk with God. When we fellowship together, we do so not so we can get brainwashed by one "super Christian" but so that we can minister to the Lord and minister to one another in the presence of God. Every believer must hold this truth to be self-evident. PS: Someone sent me the video of a pastor condemning a song recently released by a fellow believer, which is making a global impact The Pastor represents an old school of Christians who are unfit to be custodians of the gospel due to their rigidity and limited understanding of the finished work of Christ. Disciples of the gospel of Works and Performance lack creativity and discernment but are good stewards of rigidity and religious doctrines. In other words, a Pharisee must act like one, and Jesus must act like Jesus. We are all just being true to our nature. "I can never go back o No...No It's already too late o No...No Where Am I going to... No...No" If you read to this point, when I was in Spain, I asked a very important question about a meal. If you know the answer, I'm inside the comment section. -GSW-
0:38

Dumbing Down II "By Faith, this is the last rent I am paying as a single lady. If you support me to pay this rent, by the grace of God, this time next year, I will be in my husband's house." is back begging for support to pay another rent. Not because God didn't bring eligible suitors her way, but because her PASTOR has replaced the Holy Spirit in her life. Pastors ruin a lot of destinies when they insist on playing God instead of their primary role as destiny guides. Many members have submitted their free will to their pastors, giving their pastors the power that God himself didn't take from us from the dawn of creation. When you take the ability of the individual to act as a free agent in the name of religion, you reduce him or her to a puppet and yourself to a puppeteer. You want to pull the strings of the lives of thousands of born-again Christians at the same time while rendering them useless to follow their paths in Christ and grow into mature sons. I was at a Church in Anthony village about three years ago to minister, and I met this young man who was schooled at a very prestigious university in the USA. He was the in-house IT consultant of the church, and the pastor placed him on a monthly stipend while he was working for God. It was the Pastor who introduced the young man to me while boasting that God had given him the most capable hands to help him in ministry. I asked him if he had any Python, Java, cloud engineering, data management, digital marketing, coding, or similar tasks available for the young man in the church. He said no. I said, "You are giving this young man the job that any young school leaver who is proficient in computer appreciation can do, and you don't see it as limiting his capabilities and rendering his skills obsolete?" You would rather boast that you are ruining a destiny to build up your own profile rather than set this young man on the path of excellence? Did God call him into ministry as a preacher? Is he understudying you in preparation for his own ministry? The pastor said, "No, I plan that as the church expands, he will head our digital infrastructure and position us for the future." I said, "He can do that as a consultant or even as a member, he shouldn't be doing that while you are paying him 100,000 Naira a month. He should be out there, flying with his peers and earning in dollars! The only exception is if the Lord has called him to be a preacher and he is understudying you as your personal assistant, as led by the Lord as part of his season of preparation. Anything other than that is injurious to his destiny!" The pastor had never seen it that way When I was done ministering in the church, the young man hugged me and thanked me profusely. He said his mother sent him to the pastor when he returned from the USA and the pastor immediately told him that God had need of him in the ministry or he would die without fulfilling his purpose. Why do pastors do this? I have another case from the Northern part of Nigeria. A young lady reached out to me seeking clarity regarding her future She said her Apostle told her she has been raised by God to sing in his church choir, but she is a medical doctor by training and desires to further her studies abroad Every time she raised the issue with the Apostle, he shut her down and told her she was struggling with the will of God "Why can't you just submit to God and serve in the choir and watch as God will take your voice all over the world as this ministry grows?" The young lady said she knows she has a good voice and sings very well as one who is full of the Holy Spirit, but she does not want to be "Sinach", she wants to fulfil her dream of practising as a Pediatrician. She was wary of incurring the wrath and curse of the Apostle, however, and did not know how to extricate herself from the situation. The apostle did not see anything wrong with his actions because he was a user of people who believed that in order to fulfill his own desire to become a big ministry, others could not thrive and grow in their visions and ministries as ordained by God. This is witchcraft. It is not of God. Jesus didn't lead his disciples this way. Insecurity is the undoing of many African so-called Pastors and Spiritual leaders, and they hide behind the illusion of divinity to put others in bondage. I experienced this firsthand as a young graduate, so I understand how a pastor trying to build his ministry could see the potential in a young man or woman and try very hard to turn such a person into servants and house helps in the name of discipling them or training them for kingdom relevance You graduate from the University and join the labour force, you apply for many jobs, and at a point, you tell yourself it is important to seek supernatural guidance in your quest to fulfil destiny Somebody somewhere tells you about a church or a ministry, you join, and you are convinced the church is good. You also tell your friends, and they join. But you are all fresh graduates who are heading into the future one way or the other, but this pastor wants you to be his flock. To him, his church of ten members had suddenly become a church of 30 members because of you guys, and he wants to keep the numbers growing, so he begins to give you prophesies that were not of God but with the aim of keeping you in the fold for as long as possible. He told young graduates who ought to go for NYSC that God is telling him they should give it up for service to God in the vineyard. The mother of two of the ladies in the fellowship, whose daughters told that the pastor told them not to go for NYSC, quickly removed them from the fellowship before the seed of corruption being planted by this pastor would bear fruit The others also left as soon as they could gather their wit People who you ought to guide on their path in sincerity ran as far as they could from you based on how you chose to manipulate rather than nurture them. A married woman whose husband worked abroad was a trained secretary, and while her husband was abroad, catering to the needs of the family, he begged her to stop working so that she could focus on raising the children. She was raising five children all by herself, and combining this with a job seemed a bit too much at the time. One of the vital institutions for raising godly children was the church This woman attended church regularly with her children and even volunteered to spend any free time she had typing the pastor's sermons, Sunday School pamphlets, handouts, books, journals, and other church reports and documents She was not officially employed to do the work; she just saw that she could take some of the secretarial duties on during her downtime, and she did so with all sincerity. The church enjoyed her free services for five years until the pastor forgot completely that she was doing the church a favour One day, the woman came to church to tell the pastor that her husband would be returning home to visit the family, and she would not be available for a few days because she had to pick her husband up from the airport and ensure that he settled in properly. Unfortunately, that weekend was the weekend of the church's anniversary, and the pastor had a lot of secretarial work to do. He told the woman God said she should pick one. Heaven or marriage. He said if she goes to pick her husband from the airport, she has chosen the world and forsaken the Lord. The woman wept all the way home, It was not the thank you, thou faithful servant report she had worked day and night for many years to get that she received. She went to pick her husband from the airport and distanced herself from any church founded by any individual after that experience. She said the ambition of church founders requires that they use people to build, even though they lacked the resources to pay or compensate such people, so they resort to blackmail, coercion, lies, fake prophesies, promises, and manipulations to get things done while keeping their followers on a leash. Followers are also enablers as they refuse to read the Bible for themselves and walk in the light of the word of God. No one should be able to take you captive in the name of God, Jesus, all the angels, or any form of miracle if you know the word of God. The word of God is profitable to make one wise, and therefore, anyone who knows the word of God cannot fall victim to any false doctrine, teaching, spiritual manipulations, or lies. All the false teachings of someone being a covering for someone else came from these manipulative narratives, and believers should be wise to them. I have seen a pastor declare that his church is the only church in Africa that is licensed by God to take people to heaven, and some members believed him. The day he said that, all his members ought to laugh, pick up their Bibles, and leave without looking back. Self-aggrandisement has become the order of the day in some churches, the pastor sells himself as the be-all and end-all of the member's spiritual enlightenment, and the members sheepishly surrender their eyes of their understanding to him or her. He or she must determine where they work, whom they marry, who they associate with, whose music they must listen to, and whose sermons they must hear. If they want to travel, he must see if the road is clear on their behalf, if they want to build a house, he must approve, if he does not dedicate their baby, the baby is illegitimate. This is not the faith Christ or the Apostles died for. Jesus died that you might be free of religion. Christianity is not a religion, it is the opposite. It is individualistic and determined by the faith and belief system of the one rather than the many. Salvation, therefore, is a personal affair, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit is also a personal affair Religion is the opium of the masses, and Christianity is the salvation of the individual and his or her walk with God. When we fellowship together, we do so not so we can get brainwashed by one "super Christian" but so that we can minister to the Lord and minister to one another in the presence of God. Every believer must hold this truth to be self-evident. PS: Someone sent me the video of a pastor condemning a song recently released by a fellow believer, which is making a global impact The Pastor represents an old school of Christians who are unfit to be custodians of the gospel due to their rigidity and limited understanding of the finished work of Christ. Disciples of the gospel of Works and Performance lack creativity and discernment but are good stewards of rigidity and religious doctrines. In other words, a Pharisee must act like one, and Jesus must act like Jesus. We are all just being true to our nature. "I can never go back o No...No It's already too late o No...No Where Am I going to... No...No" If you read to this point, when I was in Spain, I asked a very important question about a meal. If you know the answer, I'm inside the comment section. -GSW-

Gbenga Samuel-Wemimo

28,623 views • 1 year ago

BRAZIL SHOULD TERRIFY YOU Just a day and a half ago, it seemed like things were calming in Brazil. The Folha de São Paulo, the New York Times of Brazil, editorialized against censorship. The head of the Brazilian Bar Association gave a strong statement in support of freedom of expression. And the President of Brazil’s Supreme Court said the conflict between Brazil and X, formerly known as Twitter, was over. “People talk a big game but don’t act on their words,” he said All of that has once again changed. Yesterday, Brazil’s President Lula called for criminalizing lying. Given that everybody lies, Lula is proposing to give the government the power to arrest anyone he wants. Thousands of Workers Party activists took to X yesterday to demand that I be arrested for things I said during my testimony before the Brazilian Senate. And today, the head of X in Brazil announced they have quit out fear for their safety. I am not afraid for myself. As I said on X a few days ago, I fear neither the devil nor de Moraes, the Supreme Court justice rapidly turning himself into Brazil’s dictator. I am taking all necessary precautions to ensure that I can leave Brazil safely and without being arrested. You can help by sharing this video and spreading the word about what is happening here. And yet, what is happening in Brazil terrifies me nonetheless. I love this country and its people and fear that it is on the cusp of totalitarianism. A significant share of the Left wants to incarcerate their political enemies. Respected Brazilian journalists say with a straight face that the government must engage in mass censorship in order to protect democracy. Brazil is everything that George Orwell feared and worse. The Brazilian government appears to view “1984” not as a dystopia to avoid but rather as a guide to a better future. I would be less worried if Brazil were small and irrelevant, but it’s not. Brazil is the largest and most important nation in Latin America. Just this week, top Brazilian government representatives were in China talking about how China, one of the most totalitarian nations in the world, is a model for Brazil. Brazil is an inspiration for European totalitarians who have weaponized government intelligence agencies to spread disinformation about their political enemies and are implementing a censorship system to control the entire Internet. The most terrifying part of all of this is the marriage of psychopathic government leaders like Lula and de Moraes with totalitarian activists and voters. Governments have successfully brainwashed a significant percentage of the population into supporting mass censorship. Young adults raised on social media are today more intolerant than the students in China’s Cultural Revolution in China who denounced their teachers and sent them off to work camps to be tortured. At the same time, people with a mentality no different from the people who ran the Stasi and the Gestapo are in charge of intelligence agencies in Europe and the United States. Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives renewed legislation that gives the US government the right to spy on Americans suspected of collaborating with foreign governments. The result will be McCarthyism on steroids. The FBI will be able to spy on any American citizen who dares to criticize the war in Ukraine. The US government will label people who oppose endless wars in Eurasia as “political extremists,” ruining their careers, or worse. During the rise of Communism and fascism in Europe, many Jews and other persecuted people could flee to the United States. Where will we flee if the United States continues down the road to totalitarianism? Not Europe. Not Brazil. Is any country safe in a world where every movement, transaction, and thought is being monitored? I keep waiting for the downward spiral to hit bottom, and it never does. I am naturally optimistic, but sometimes, that means I have tended toward wishful thinking. Such wishful thinking is dangerous and irresponsible in moments like this one. So, too, is passivity. We must act. That starts with standing up to the bullies, all of whom are cowards on the inside. Elon Musk stood up to the bully de Moraes last week and appears to be holding strong. Tonight, he will hold a Spaces with the controversial former president of Brazil, whom the Supreme Court has prevented from running for office again for another eight years. My colleagues and I are building a new free-speech movement. All of the organizations we used to rely upon to defend human rights, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and ACLU, have been taken over by totalitarians demanding censorship. We are gathering in London in June. We are starting our own free-speech NGOs around the world. We can’t do this alone. Please share this post, consider subscribing to my publication, Public, and make a donation. People are risking their lives to defend free speech for all human beings. You don’t need to risk yours, but we desperately need your help. Things won’t calm down until we stand up to the tyrants and remove every one of them from power.
5:18

BRAZIL SHOULD TERRIFY YOU Just a day and a half ago, it seemed like things were calming in Brazil. The Folha de São Paulo, the New York Times of Brazil, editorialized against censorship. The head of the Brazilian Bar Association gave a strong statement in support of freedom of expression. And the President of Brazil’s Supreme Court said the conflict between Brazil and X, formerly known as Twitter, was over. “People talk a big game but don’t act on their words,” he said All of that has once again changed. Yesterday, Brazil’s President Lula called for criminalizing lying. Given that everybody lies, Lula is proposing to give the government the power to arrest anyone he wants. Thousands of Workers Party activists took to X yesterday to demand that I be arrested for things I said during my testimony before the Brazilian Senate. And today, the head of X in Brazil announced they have quit out fear for their safety. I am not afraid for myself. As I said on X a few days ago, I fear neither the devil nor de Moraes, the Supreme Court justice rapidly turning himself into Brazil’s dictator. I am taking all necessary precautions to ensure that I can leave Brazil safely and without being arrested. You can help by sharing this video and spreading the word about what is happening here. And yet, what is happening in Brazil terrifies me nonetheless. I love this country and its people and fear that it is on the cusp of totalitarianism. A significant share of the Left wants to incarcerate their political enemies. Respected Brazilian journalists say with a straight face that the government must engage in mass censorship in order to protect democracy. Brazil is everything that George Orwell feared and worse. The Brazilian government appears to view “1984” not as a dystopia to avoid but rather as a guide to a better future. I would be less worried if Brazil were small and irrelevant, but it’s not. Brazil is the largest and most important nation in Latin America. Just this week, top Brazilian government representatives were in China talking about how China, one of the most totalitarian nations in the world, is a model for Brazil. Brazil is an inspiration for European totalitarians who have weaponized government intelligence agencies to spread disinformation about their political enemies and are implementing a censorship system to control the entire Internet. The most terrifying part of all of this is the marriage of psychopathic government leaders like Lula and de Moraes with totalitarian activists and voters. Governments have successfully brainwashed a significant percentage of the population into supporting mass censorship. Young adults raised on social media are today more intolerant than the students in China’s Cultural Revolution in China who denounced their teachers and sent them off to work camps to be tortured. At the same time, people with a mentality no different from the people who ran the Stasi and the Gestapo are in charge of intelligence agencies in Europe and the United States. Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives renewed legislation that gives the US government the right to spy on Americans suspected of collaborating with foreign governments. The result will be McCarthyism on steroids. The FBI will be able to spy on any American citizen who dares to criticize the war in Ukraine. The US government will label people who oppose endless wars in Eurasia as “political extremists,” ruining their careers, or worse. During the rise of Communism and fascism in Europe, many Jews and other persecuted people could flee to the United States. Where will we flee if the United States continues down the road to totalitarianism? Not Europe. Not Brazil. Is any country safe in a world where every movement, transaction, and thought is being monitored? I keep waiting for the downward spiral to hit bottom, and it never does. I am naturally optimistic, but sometimes, that means I have tended toward wishful thinking. Such wishful thinking is dangerous and irresponsible in moments like this one. So, too, is passivity. We must act. That starts with standing up to the bullies, all of whom are cowards on the inside. Elon Musk stood up to the bully de Moraes last week and appears to be holding strong. Tonight, he will hold a Spaces with the controversial former president of Brazil, whom the Supreme Court has prevented from running for office again for another eight years. My colleagues and I are building a new free-speech movement. All of the organizations we used to rely upon to defend human rights, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and ACLU, have been taken over by totalitarians demanding censorship. We are gathering in London in June. We are starting our own free-speech NGOs around the world. We can’t do this alone. Please share this post, consider subscribing to my publication, Public, and make a donation. People are risking their lives to defend free speech for all human beings. You don’t need to risk yours, but we desperately need your help. Things won’t calm down until we stand up to the tyrants and remove every one of them from power.

Michael Shellenberger

1,725,063 views • 2 years ago

Damage Control From a Mayor Who Has Everything to Fear The national grooming gang inquiry has not yet begun. But the political effort to control it already has. As predicted, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham publicly rebuked critics of the inquiry's new chair, urging them to stop "reading politics into it" and to "let the inquiry do its business." Damage control from a man who has everything to fear from what this inquiry might expose. Burnham is not some outside observer. He is neck-deep in this scandal's recent history. As mayor, he commissioned, promoted and defended the Oldham Assurance Review. A whitewash sold to the public as independent but designed from the start to avoid the most serious evidence of institutional failure. That review was not botched incompetence. It was a cover up. Look at what it actually did: - it cleared political figures of wrongdoing - it refused to interview a single Pakistani grooming gang survivor - it accepted political explanations without testing them against evidence - it concluded there was no cover up despite confirming children were gang raped, public officials and politicians knew what was taking place, and information was hidden from parents. There is no plausible explanation for clearing politicians while excluding the most relevant survivors other than protection. Burnham knows exactly what he faces. He commissioned a review that cleared his allies while silencing survivors. He defended a process that excluded Pakistani rape gang victims. His review was used to block any further inquiry. Now he is desperately trying to manage expectations before the real investigation begins. Burnham thinks containing the inquiry's scope will protect him. He is wrong. The evidence of his role in commissioning institutional cover-up is already established. The only question is whether this inquiry will have the independence to follow where that evidence leads and call Burnham to testify under oath. Burnham's intervention is not defending justice. It is defending himself. And he has every reason to be afraid. And for those that have asked. All Andy Burnham has to do is name the time and place. I will present the evidence of his role in the cover up of the industrial scale gang rape of children to his face if he dares face me. _________ I’m Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. Before that, I spent over a decade safeguarding children and protecting communities from extremists. My work is free because the truth must circulate. But truth without numbers is easy to crush. The government does not fear facts. It fears scale. Starmer and the Labour Party fear thousands reading, sharing, and backing the same work because numbers mean witnesses, pressure, and consequences. That’s why I am blacklisted by the legacy media. That's why this matters. 🔴 Subscribe to the newsletter. It’s free. Every subscriber is a number they can’t erase. Every reader widens the circle they can’t control. 👉 Subscribe or support here: If you can afford it, please support for 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Not for perks. Not for access. But because numbers with backing become power. A few supporters can be ignored. Thousands cannot. This is how this campaign survive. This is how we see this through. This is how voices like ours stops being managed and starts being feared. 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No sponsors. No parties. No institutions to lean on. Just numbers. Growing fast enough that shutting this down becomes impossible. We don’t need everyone. We need enough. We need you. – Raja Miah MBE
16:59

Damage Control From a Mayor Who Has Everything to Fear The national grooming gang inquiry has not yet begun. But the political effort to control it already has. As predicted, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham publicly rebuked critics of the inquiry's new chair, urging them to stop "reading politics into it" and to "let the inquiry do its business." Damage control from a man who has everything to fear from what this inquiry might expose. Burnham is not some outside observer. He is neck-deep in this scandal's recent history. As mayor, he commissioned, promoted and defended the Oldham Assurance Review. A whitewash sold to the public as independent but designed from the start to avoid the most serious evidence of institutional failure. That review was not botched incompetence. It was a cover up. Look at what it actually did: - it cleared political figures of wrongdoing - it refused to interview a single Pakistani grooming gang survivor - it accepted political explanations without testing them against evidence - it concluded there was no cover up despite confirming children were gang raped, public officials and politicians knew what was taking place, and information was hidden from parents. There is no plausible explanation for clearing politicians while excluding the most relevant survivors other than protection. Burnham knows exactly what he faces. He commissioned a review that cleared his allies while silencing survivors. He defended a process that excluded Pakistani rape gang victims. His review was used to block any further inquiry. Now he is desperately trying to manage expectations before the real investigation begins. Burnham thinks containing the inquiry's scope will protect him. He is wrong. The evidence of his role in commissioning institutional cover-up is already established. The only question is whether this inquiry will have the independence to follow where that evidence leads and call Burnham to testify under oath. Burnham's intervention is not defending justice. It is defending himself. And he has every reason to be afraid. And for those that have asked. All Andy Burnham has to do is name the time and place. I will present the evidence of his role in the cover up of the industrial scale gang rape of children to his face if he dares face me. _________ I’m Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. Before that, I spent over a decade safeguarding children and protecting communities from extremists. My work is free because the truth must circulate. But truth without numbers is easy to crush. The government does not fear facts. It fears scale. Starmer and the Labour Party fear thousands reading, sharing, and backing the same work because numbers mean witnesses, pressure, and consequences. That’s why I am blacklisted by the legacy media. That's why this matters. 🔴 Subscribe to the newsletter. It’s free. Every subscriber is a number they can’t erase. Every reader widens the circle they can’t control. 👉 Subscribe or support here: If you can afford it, please support for 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Not for perks. Not for access. But because numbers with backing become power. A few supporters can be ignored. Thousands cannot. This is how this campaign survive. This is how we see this through. This is how voices like ours stops being managed and starts being feared. 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No sponsors. No parties. No institutions to lean on. Just numbers. Growing fast enough that shutting this down becomes impossible. We don’t need everyone. We need enough. We need you. – Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

20,644 views • 7 months ago

BREAKING: “The Persecution of the Mother of Peace Continues in Korea” Seoul, October 2025 — Religious persecution in Korea continued today with the indictment and continued detention of the 82-year-old Mother of Peace, Dr. Hak Ja Han. As other recent legal proceedings confirm, this religious persecution is not limited to any one leader or church. Charlie Kirk put it best when he said, “There are some terrible things happening in South Korea right now.” In recent weeks, the world has come to recognize what is happening in Korea. While unacceptable, it is not new. Throughout history, the most powerful voices for peace have been persecuted by the systems they sought to redeem. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for believing in equality. Mahatma Gandhi was jailed for teaching nonviolence. Mother Teresa was condemned for her compassion among the poor. And now, today leaves no doubt – the indictment and detention of Dr. Hak Ja Han places South Korea on the wrong side of history with so many others. Persecutions based on faith, not conduct, can never be condoned. It marks yet another tragic moment for faith and freedom. We fervently ask that the world pray for us. More will come so long as religious persecution is allowed to continue. Make no mistake — this is not about justice. It is about the persecution of a woman whose entire life has been defined by peace, compassion, and service to humanity. Dr. Han — a great-grandmother, humanitarian, and global spiritual leader — has harmed no one. Her only “crime” is her faith, her leadership, and her unrelenting vision that humanity can live as one family under God. This moment is not about a courtroom — it is about conscience. It is about whether a nation that cherishes democracy will allow fear and falsehood to silence faith. To those who believe in justice: we call on you to speak, to pray, and to act. This is not just a fight for one woman; it is a fight for the soul of religious freedom in the 21st century. Though the walls of injustice may confine her, her spirit remains free — and so must ours. The Mother of Peace continues her mission through us all. The persecution may continue — but our faith only grows stronger. – President Demian Dunkley - FFWPU-USA #MotherOfPeace #FaithFreedomPeace #ReligiousFreedom #FreeDrHakJaHan #StandForFaith #HumanRights #Korea #Democracy The White House Department of State 주한미국대사관 U.S. Embassy Seoul Senator Marco Rubio: Archived @RepChrisSmith Tucker Carlson Charlie Kirk NEWSMAX Fox News Morse H. Tan Tara O Gordon G. Chang
0:52

BREAKING: “The Persecution of the Mother of Peace Continues in Korea” Seoul, October 2025 — Religious persecution in Korea continued today with the indictment and continued detention of the 82-year-old Mother of Peace, Dr. Hak Ja Han. As other recent legal proceedings confirm, this religious persecution is not limited to any one leader or church. Charlie Kirk put it best when he said, “There are some terrible things happening in South Korea right now.” In recent weeks, the world has come to recognize what is happening in Korea. While unacceptable, it is not new. Throughout history, the most powerful voices for peace have been persecuted by the systems they sought to redeem. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for believing in equality. Mahatma Gandhi was jailed for teaching nonviolence. Mother Teresa was condemned for her compassion among the poor. And now, today leaves no doubt – the indictment and detention of Dr. Hak Ja Han places South Korea on the wrong side of history with so many others. Persecutions based on faith, not conduct, can never be condoned. It marks yet another tragic moment for faith and freedom. We fervently ask that the world pray for us. More will come so long as religious persecution is allowed to continue. Make no mistake — this is not about justice. It is about the persecution of a woman whose entire life has been defined by peace, compassion, and service to humanity. Dr. Han — a great-grandmother, humanitarian, and global spiritual leader — has harmed no one. Her only “crime” is her faith, her leadership, and her unrelenting vision that humanity can live as one family under God. This moment is not about a courtroom — it is about conscience. It is about whether a nation that cherishes democracy will allow fear and falsehood to silence faith. To those who believe in justice: we call on you to speak, to pray, and to act. This is not just a fight for one woman; it is a fight for the soul of religious freedom in the 21st century. Though the walls of injustice may confine her, her spirit remains free — and so must ours. The Mother of Peace continues her mission through us all. The persecution may continue — but our faith only grows stronger. – President Demian Dunkley - FFWPU-USA #MotherOfPeace #FaithFreedomPeace #ReligiousFreedom #FreeDrHakJaHan #StandForFaith #HumanRights #Korea #Democracy The White House Department of State 주한미국대사관 U.S. Embassy Seoul Senator Marco Rubio: Archived @RepChrisSmith Tucker Carlson Charlie Kirk NEWSMAX Fox News Morse H. Tan Tara O Gordon G. Chang

Demian Dunkley

32,220 views • 10 months ago