Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

WOW 🚨 On The Record Testimony & Evidence That Barack Obama Created An Illegal Psyop Against The American People To Interfere In Future Elections “2 days ago, my colleagues and I published the 1st batch of internal files from the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, which show US and UK...

WallStreetApes's profile picture

Wall Street Apes

1,402,878 subscribers

958,215 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

Gesundheit & WellnessNachrichten & PolitikWissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

8 Kommentare

Profilbild von Rubyluxe 🇦🇺
Rubyluxe 🇦🇺vor 2 Jahren

It’s all part of the plan! Watch this, if it doesn’t wake you up. You’ll be asleep forever.

Profilbild von Real Carolinagurl
Real Carolinagurlvor 2 Jahren

These people could never handle a ounce of what they have done to Trump and his supporters!

Profilbild von EricStoner
EricStonervor 2 Jahren

Couple with this and you have a tech control wet dream. LEAKED VIDEO: Google Leadership's Dismayed Reaction to Trump Election (All Hands On Deck) 'Holy Sh*t': Breitbart's Leaked Google Video Stuns Media GOOGLE TAPES: THESE LEFTIST HATERS CONTROL YOUR SEARCH ENGINE

Profilbild von Jane
Janevor 2 Jahren

Let’s hear @NikkiHaley opinion on this compared to @VivekGRamaswamy We can tell Fox conservatives she’s a neocon but that it’s so much more than war for profit. It s exceedingly troublesome that most Americans have no idea why this matters or that it happened.

Profilbild von SlayHQ
SlayHQvor 2 Jahren

Bring out the orange jumpsuits

Profilbild von AwesomeDude
AwesomeDudevor 2 Jahren

@Autumnlilyx1 This stuff isn't complicated, all government employees involved violated 18 U.S. Code § 242. It's a very, very serious crime. If this doesn't wake you up nothing will.

Profilbild von Fish_Kungfu
Fish_Kungfuvor 2 Jahren

People high up need to go to prison for a long time for this crap.

Profilbild von volicious one
volicious onevor 2 Jahren

Sadly as with most things, Ukraine spending, our border, our elections…. Nothing will be done bc both sides of the isle the republicans and democrats are either bought or blackmailed and will do nothing to stop what is going on.

Ähnliche Videos

Here is: The Director of the National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The evidence we have found — and that we have released — directly points to Barack Hussein Obama leading a treasonous conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people and overthrow the United States government in 2016 — orchestrated the overthrow in 2020 to cover it up, and now he’s been caught. DNI Tulsi Gabbard “When you look at the intent behind creating a fake manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were created by the intelligence community, the expressed intent, and what followed afterward can only be described as a year long crew and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our republic, and an attempt to overthrow the United States government. Barack: why don’t you add that to your library.
1:27

Here is: The Director of the National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The evidence we have found — and that we have released — directly points to Barack Hussein Obama leading a treasonous conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people and overthrow the United States government in 2016 — orchestrated the overthrow in 2020 to cover it up, and now he’s been caught. DNI Tulsi Gabbard “When you look at the intent behind creating a fake manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were created by the intelligence community, the expressed intent, and what followed afterward can only be described as a year long crew and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our republic, and an attempt to overthrow the United States government. Barack: why don’t you add that to your library.

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

76,327 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Elon Musk Is All That Stands In The Way Of Totalitarianism Last night, around 8 p.m. local time in São Paulo, Brazil, Federal Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes announced a criminal investigation into Elon Musk, the owner of X, formerly known as Twitter, for allegedly spreading disinformation, obstructing justice, and allowing people who De Moraes had banned from social media to freely express their views. De Moraes said he would fine X twenty thousand dollars per day for every banned person Musk allows to speak. As such, De Moraes has taken Brazil one step closer to being a dictatorship. What’s more, the events of the last few weeks make clear that Elon Musk is the only thing standing in the way of global totalitarianism. Without free speech, there can be no democracy. If X goes down, we must continue to fight. We can continue to communicate through email and other social media platforms, such as Facebook. But email is no substitute for social media platforms' capacity to share information with millions of people. Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, abandoned his principled free speech position in 2020 after three years of relentless pressure from activist NGOs, Democrats, and corporate advertisers. Today, Facebook actively represses the spread of news. The mainstream corporate news media have never been more corrupt and totalitarian. With few exceptions, they spread government propaganda as a matter of policy. Nobody demands censorship more than the corporate media, which benefit from governments shutting down their competitors. Governments are either not protecting free speech or actively participating in the war upon it. Last month, the US Supreme Court held a hearing where justices made clear that they were fine with the US government pressuring social media companies to censor. Last week, the Scottish government implemented a law to crack down on so-called hate speech, including jokes by comedians. In Ireland, the government wants the power to send police into people’s homes to search computers and phones for hate speech. In Canada, the governing Liberal party wants the power to send people to prison for life for things they’ve said. And the European Union has empowered a tiny group of bureaucrats to decide what is true and false and engage in mass censorship. All of this is happening at the very same moment that my colleagues and I have revealed that government intelligence organizations are working through NGOs to interfere in elections by spreading disinformation about populist activists and political candidates. In other words, governments are demanding censorship in order to protect their ability to spread disinformation. Making matters worse, governments are directly financing corporate news media. The current Brazilian government is spending 30 times more than the previous government on media advertising in order to spread its disinformation. I never in my life thought I would live to see the rise of totalitarianism in Western countries. A powerful minority of educated elites around the world are demanding the censorship, persecution, and incarceration of their political enemies. Naturally, they are doing so in the name of saving democracy. I am shocked and embarrassed that I used to call many of these totalitarians friends and allies. The only explanation is that they are in the grip of mass psychosis after years of media propaganda and government disinformation falsely claiming that populist political movements are undemocratic. The fact that the future of free speech rests upon the shoulders of a single individual is not something any of us should want. I do not think that this is a responsibility Elon Musk wants. He would be a far richer person had he never bought Twitter. He would also be living a more peaceful life. After Musk bought Twitter, the Biden administration and the Democratic Party declared war on him. Various government agencies filed multiple frivolous lawsuits against Musk and his companies in ways very similar to the war the Brazilian government is waging against X. What all of this reveals is that, until Musk bought Twitter, we didn’t really have freedom of expression. The US government felt that it controlled both the corporate news media and social media companies. We saw in the Twitter Files that the FBI orchestrated a disinformation and censorship campaign in order to protect Joe Biden. Starting with the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, operatives working for the US Department of Defense and the British Ministry of Defense sought to hide their censorship and disinformation efforts as “cyber security.” After that, the US Department of Homeland Security and the Stanford Internet Observatory engaged in a mass censorship effort around the 2020 elections and Covid. It is today clear that intelligence and security agencies have been working together around the world to gain control over social media platforms in order to discredit, prosecute, and incarcerate populist leaders. The evidence is now overwhelming that the FBI and Secret Service are covering up evidence related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot in Washington DC. And there is still much we do not know about the eerily similar riot in Brazil’s capitol on January 8, 2023. There is much we need to do to fight back....
5:16

Elon Musk Is All That Stands In The Way Of Totalitarianism Last night, around 8 p.m. local time in São Paulo, Brazil, Federal Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes announced a criminal investigation into Elon Musk, the owner of X, formerly known as Twitter, for allegedly spreading disinformation, obstructing justice, and allowing people who De Moraes had banned from social media to freely express their views. De Moraes said he would fine X twenty thousand dollars per day for every banned person Musk allows to speak. As such, De Moraes has taken Brazil one step closer to being a dictatorship. What’s more, the events of the last few weeks make clear that Elon Musk is the only thing standing in the way of global totalitarianism. Without free speech, there can be no democracy. If X goes down, we must continue to fight. We can continue to communicate through email and other social media platforms, such as Facebook. But email is no substitute for social media platforms' capacity to share information with millions of people. Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, abandoned his principled free speech position in 2020 after three years of relentless pressure from activist NGOs, Democrats, and corporate advertisers. Today, Facebook actively represses the spread of news. The mainstream corporate news media have never been more corrupt and totalitarian. With few exceptions, they spread government propaganda as a matter of policy. Nobody demands censorship more than the corporate media, which benefit from governments shutting down their competitors. Governments are either not protecting free speech or actively participating in the war upon it. Last month, the US Supreme Court held a hearing where justices made clear that they were fine with the US government pressuring social media companies to censor. Last week, the Scottish government implemented a law to crack down on so-called hate speech, including jokes by comedians. In Ireland, the government wants the power to send police into people’s homes to search computers and phones for hate speech. In Canada, the governing Liberal party wants the power to send people to prison for life for things they’ve said. And the European Union has empowered a tiny group of bureaucrats to decide what is true and false and engage in mass censorship. All of this is happening at the very same moment that my colleagues and I have revealed that government intelligence organizations are working through NGOs to interfere in elections by spreading disinformation about populist activists and political candidates. In other words, governments are demanding censorship in order to protect their ability to spread disinformation. Making matters worse, governments are directly financing corporate news media. The current Brazilian government is spending 30 times more than the previous government on media advertising in order to spread its disinformation. I never in my life thought I would live to see the rise of totalitarianism in Western countries. A powerful minority of educated elites around the world are demanding the censorship, persecution, and incarceration of their political enemies. Naturally, they are doing so in the name of saving democracy. I am shocked and embarrassed that I used to call many of these totalitarians friends and allies. The only explanation is that they are in the grip of mass psychosis after years of media propaganda and government disinformation falsely claiming that populist political movements are undemocratic. The fact that the future of free speech rests upon the shoulders of a single individual is not something any of us should want. I do not think that this is a responsibility Elon Musk wants. He would be a far richer person had he never bought Twitter. He would also be living a more peaceful life. After Musk bought Twitter, the Biden administration and the Democratic Party declared war on him. Various government agencies filed multiple frivolous lawsuits against Musk and his companies in ways very similar to the war the Brazilian government is waging against X. What all of this reveals is that, until Musk bought Twitter, we didn’t really have freedom of expression. The US government felt that it controlled both the corporate news media and social media companies. We saw in the Twitter Files that the FBI orchestrated a disinformation and censorship campaign in order to protect Joe Biden. Starting with the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, operatives working for the US Department of Defense and the British Ministry of Defense sought to hide their censorship and disinformation efforts as “cyber security.” After that, the US Department of Homeland Security and the Stanford Internet Observatory engaged in a mass censorship effort around the 2020 elections and Covid. It is today clear that intelligence and security agencies have been working together around the world to gain control over social media platforms in order to discredit, prosecute, and incarcerate populist leaders. The evidence is now overwhelming that the FBI and Secret Service are covering up evidence related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot in Washington DC. And there is still much we do not know about the eerily similar riot in Brazil’s capitol on January 8, 2023. There is much we need to do to fight back....

Michael Shellenberger

15,782,018 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Epstein Survivor Liz Stein: We have been called a hoax, and we are definitely not a hoax. But I think that the American people have seen through that, and they resoundingly responded in putting pressure on their legislators for the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. So I think that the best way that the American public can support us is by continuing to put the pressure on and demanding accountability from our government to release all of this information.
0:33

Epstein Survivor Liz Stein: We have been called a hoax, and we are definitely not a hoax. But I think that the American people have seen through that, and they resoundingly responded in putting pressure on their legislators for the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. So I think that the best way that the American public can support us is by continuing to put the pressure on and demanding accountability from our government to release all of this information.

FactPost

36,095 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

.Congressman Robert Garcia: "The Department of Justice continues to lead a White House cover-up. We're going to be demanding...that the remaining files that have not been released get released to the public. That includes new files that were just discovered in the last couple says of a survivor that has made serious accusation and allegations against not just Jeffrey Epstein but also against President Trump and about abuse that she suffered when she was a minor. We have seen the DOJ files and the archive manifest that clearly shows that the interviews and information around this survivor have been removed and are missing from the DOJ files. Where are these files? Who removed them?" Full video here:
1:28

.Congressman Robert Garcia: "The Department of Justice continues to lead a White House cover-up. We're going to be demanding...that the remaining files that have not been released get released to the public. That includes new files that were just discovered in the last couple says of a survivor that has made serious accusation and allegations against not just Jeffrey Epstein but also against President Trump and about abuse that she suffered when she was a minor. We have seen the DOJ files and the archive manifest that clearly shows that the interviews and information around this survivor have been removed and are missing from the DOJ files. Where are these files? Who removed them?" Full video here:

CSPAN

11,935 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🔥 MARC ANDREESSEN: “There's nothing that happened at Twitter, in the Twitter files, that wasn't happening at all the other companies. So it's a consistent pattern. If you got the YouTube files, they would look exactly the same. And of course, we should get the YouTube files. And now we probably will ... I think there are people with criminal liability who are involved in this ... I would imagine the new Trump Administration is going to come in and carve all that wide open. And I know that there are people being appointed to senior positions who are very determined to do that." Joe Rogan Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 Elon Musk
2:40

🔥 MARC ANDREESSEN: “There's nothing that happened at Twitter, in the Twitter files, that wasn't happening at all the other companies. So it's a consistent pattern. If you got the YouTube files, they would look exactly the same. And of course, we should get the YouTube files. And now we probably will ... I think there are people with criminal liability who are involved in this ... I would imagine the new Trump Administration is going to come in and carve all that wide open. And I know that there are people being appointed to senior positions who are very determined to do that." Joe Rogan Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 Elon Musk

Chief Nerd

422,436 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"There's now incontrovertible evidence that he was the spearhead of a seditious conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people and overthrow the United States government back in 2016..." Who thinks Obama needs to spend the rest of his life in prison?
1:34

"There's now incontrovertible evidence that he was the spearhead of a seditious conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people and overthrow the United States government back in 2016..." Who thinks Obama needs to spend the rest of his life in prison?

SaltyGoat

22,713 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!
4:56

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

131,422 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Here it is: In December 2016, both Barack Obama and the House Intelligence Committee received the exact same briefing confirming that the Russians did not interfere in the election—yet Barack Hussein Obama still ordered the overthrow of the United States government. Devin Nunez: “There was a PDB (Presidential Daily Brief) that was written in early December 2016 that said the Russians didn’t do anything effectively. And, by the way, that matched the briefing we had in the House Intelligence Committee around Thanksgiving of 2016. So if that was the intelligence, why wasn’t it made public? Why did Obama order this new assessment that differed from the intelligence we had? By the way, the information we were given in 2016—and that Obama was about to be given in December 2016—was accurate. That was accurate information, accurate intelligence, which they then buried and basically turned into this new scam that ultimately ended up with the Mueller witch hunt.” In other words: Obama knew. Adam Schiff knew. The House Intelligence Committee knew. The December 2016 briefing made it clear: the Russians didn’t interfere. And yet, Barack Hussein Obama ordered the overthrow of the United States government. 📝Now, give the man Devin Nunes the Presidential Medal of Freedom—at once.
2:44

Here it is: In December 2016, both Barack Obama and the House Intelligence Committee received the exact same briefing confirming that the Russians did not interfere in the election—yet Barack Hussein Obama still ordered the overthrow of the United States government. Devin Nunez: “There was a PDB (Presidential Daily Brief) that was written in early December 2016 that said the Russians didn’t do anything effectively. And, by the way, that matched the briefing we had in the House Intelligence Committee around Thanksgiving of 2016. So if that was the intelligence, why wasn’t it made public? Why did Obama order this new assessment that differed from the intelligence we had? By the way, the information we were given in 2016—and that Obama was about to be given in December 2016—was accurate. That was accurate information, accurate intelligence, which they then buried and basically turned into this new scam that ultimately ended up with the Mueller witch hunt.” In other words: Obama knew. Adam Schiff knew. The House Intelligence Committee knew. The December 2016 briefing made it clear: the Russians didn’t interfere. And yet, Barack Hussein Obama ordered the overthrow of the United States government. 📝Now, give the man Devin Nunes the Presidential Medal of Freedom—at once.

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

126,691 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....
2:48

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....

Michael Shellenberger

21,897,944 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🧵THREAD: Joe Rogan and Michael Shellenberger discuss the censorship industrial complex, Elon Musk, the Twitter Files, vaccine injuries, the increase in all-cause mortality, and The Real Anthony Fauci. "Ordinary people were trying to tell the stories of the side effects they had from the vaccine on Facebook and Twitter, and the White House is demanding that Facebook and Twitter censor them."
1:23

🧵THREAD: Joe Rogan and Michael Shellenberger discuss the censorship industrial complex, Elon Musk, the Twitter Files, vaccine injuries, the increase in all-cause mortality, and The Real Anthony Fauci. "Ordinary people were trying to tell the stories of the side effects they had from the vaccine on Facebook and Twitter, and the White House is demanding that Facebook and Twitter censor them."

KanekoaTheGreat

2,201,472 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

The Iranian people are dying for their freedom. They are protesting against a brutal and despotic regime that has oppressed its people for nearly five decades. The Iranian regime is a hostile state and a threat to the UK. Words and statements from the government are not enough. The UK Government needs to act now and back the people of Iran.
0:32

The Iranian people are dying for their freedom. They are protesting against a brutal and despotic regime that has oppressed its people for nearly five decades. The Iranian regime is a hostile state and a threat to the UK. Words and statements from the government are not enough. The UK Government needs to act now and back the people of Iran.

Priti Patel MP

36,297 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

BRAZIL IS ON THE BRINK I’m reporting to you from Brazil, where a dramatic series of events are underway. At 5:52 pm Eastern Time, today, April 6, 2024, X corporation, formerly known as Twitter, announced that a Brazilian court had forced it to “block certain popular accounts in Brazil.” Then, less than one hour later, the owner of X, Elon Musk announced that X would defy the court’s order, and lift all restrictions. “As a result,” said Musk, “we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there. But principles matter more than profit.” At any moment, Brazil’s Supreme Court could shut off all access to X/Twitter for the people of Brazil. It is not an exaggeration to say that Brazil is on the brink of dictatorship at the hands of a totalitarian Supreme Court Justice named Alexandre de Moraes. President Lula da Silva is participating in the push toward totalitarianism. Since taking office, Lula has massively increased government funding of the mainstream news media, most of which are encouraging increased censorship. What Lula and de Moraes are doing is an outrageous violation of Brazil’s constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. At this moment, Brazil is not yet a dictatorship. It still has elections and the Brazilian people have other means at their disposal to confront authoritarianism. But the Federal Supreme Court and the Superior Electoral Court are directly interfere in those elections through censorship. Three days ago I published the Twitter Files for Brazil. They show that Moraes has violated the Brazilian Constitution. Moraes illegally demanded that Twitter reveal private information about Twitter users who used hashtags he considered inappropriate. He demanded access to Twitter's internal data, violating the platform's policy. He censored, on his own initiative and without any respect for due process, posts on Twitter by parliamentarians from the Brazilian Congress. And Moraes tried to turn Twitter's content moderation policies into a weapon against supporters of then-president Jair Bolsonaro. I say this as an independent and non-partisan journalist. I'm not a fan of either Bolsonaro or Trump. My political views are very moderate. But I know censorship when I see it. The Twitter Files also revealed that Google, Facebook, Uber, WhatsApp and Instagram betrayed the people of Brazil. If such evidence is proven, the executives of these companies behaved like cowards: they provided the Brazilian government with personal registration data and telephone numbers without a court order and, therefore, violating the law. When Twitter refused to provide Brazilian authorities with private user information, including direct messages, the government attempted to sue Twitter's top Brazilian lawyer. When I lived in Brazil in 1992, I was very left-wing. At the time, Lula and the PT's slogans were “Without fear of being happy”. In recent days, I have spoken to dozens of Brazilians, including professors, journalists and respected lawyers. Everyone tells me they are shocked by what is happening. They told me that they are afraid to speak their mind and that the Lula government is complicit in creating this climate of fear. Brazil belongs to the Brazilians. It is not my country. As such, there are limits to what I am capable of doing. But I can say things that many Brazilians do not feel safe saying: Alexandre de Moraes is a tyrant. And the only way to deal with tyrants is to confront them. It is up to Brazil’s senators to confront the tyrant. And it is up to the people of Brazil to demand that their senators do so.
4:14

BRAZIL IS ON THE BRINK I’m reporting to you from Brazil, where a dramatic series of events are underway. At 5:52 pm Eastern Time, today, April 6, 2024, X corporation, formerly known as Twitter, announced that a Brazilian court had forced it to “block certain popular accounts in Brazil.” Then, less than one hour later, the owner of X, Elon Musk announced that X would defy the court’s order, and lift all restrictions. “As a result,” said Musk, “we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there. But principles matter more than profit.” At any moment, Brazil’s Supreme Court could shut off all access to X/Twitter for the people of Brazil. It is not an exaggeration to say that Brazil is on the brink of dictatorship at the hands of a totalitarian Supreme Court Justice named Alexandre de Moraes. President Lula da Silva is participating in the push toward totalitarianism. Since taking office, Lula has massively increased government funding of the mainstream news media, most of which are encouraging increased censorship. What Lula and de Moraes are doing is an outrageous violation of Brazil’s constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. At this moment, Brazil is not yet a dictatorship. It still has elections and the Brazilian people have other means at their disposal to confront authoritarianism. But the Federal Supreme Court and the Superior Electoral Court are directly interfere in those elections through censorship. Three days ago I published the Twitter Files for Brazil. They show that Moraes has violated the Brazilian Constitution. Moraes illegally demanded that Twitter reveal private information about Twitter users who used hashtags he considered inappropriate. He demanded access to Twitter's internal data, violating the platform's policy. He censored, on his own initiative and without any respect for due process, posts on Twitter by parliamentarians from the Brazilian Congress. And Moraes tried to turn Twitter's content moderation policies into a weapon against supporters of then-president Jair Bolsonaro. I say this as an independent and non-partisan journalist. I'm not a fan of either Bolsonaro or Trump. My political views are very moderate. But I know censorship when I see it. The Twitter Files also revealed that Google, Facebook, Uber, WhatsApp and Instagram betrayed the people of Brazil. If such evidence is proven, the executives of these companies behaved like cowards: they provided the Brazilian government with personal registration data and telephone numbers without a court order and, therefore, violating the law. When Twitter refused to provide Brazilian authorities with private user information, including direct messages, the government attempted to sue Twitter's top Brazilian lawyer. When I lived in Brazil in 1992, I was very left-wing. At the time, Lula and the PT's slogans were “Without fear of being happy”. In recent days, I have spoken to dozens of Brazilians, including professors, journalists and respected lawyers. Everyone tells me they are shocked by what is happening. They told me that they are afraid to speak their mind and that the Lula government is complicit in creating this climate of fear. Brazil belongs to the Brazilians. It is not my country. As such, there are limits to what I am capable of doing. But I can say things that many Brazilians do not feel safe saying: Alexandre de Moraes is a tyrant. And the only way to deal with tyrants is to confront them. It is up to Brazil’s senators to confront the tyrant. And it is up to the people of Brazil to demand that their senators do so.

Michael Shellenberger

33,889,011 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

A Senior CIA officer for 30 years confirms the psychological operations they use overseas were turned against Donald Trump and the American People to keep Democrats in power “An intelligence agent, now retired, very senior. He looked me in the eye and said, the truth of the matter is, we took the playbook for psychological operations and information warfare that we would use against our enemies, and we turned it against the American people to undo the 2016 election and to make sure they didn't elect Donald Trump in 2020. Now, that is a senior intelligence officer with more than 30 years of experience, a patriot who served in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, and he understood that the tactics of making something fake look real were ripped right out of our intelligence communities. Our intelligence agencies not only harmed Donald Trump, they were harming the American public, the national security interests of the American public”
0:54

A Senior CIA officer for 30 years confirms the psychological operations they use overseas were turned against Donald Trump and the American People to keep Democrats in power “An intelligence agent, now retired, very senior. He looked me in the eye and said, the truth of the matter is, we took the playbook for psychological operations and information warfare that we would use against our enemies, and we turned it against the American people to undo the 2016 election and to make sure they didn't elect Donald Trump in 2020. Now, that is a senior intelligence officer with more than 30 years of experience, a patriot who served in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, and he understood that the tactics of making something fake look real were ripped right out of our intelligence communities. Our intelligence agencies not only harmed Donald Trump, they were harming the American public, the national security interests of the American public”

Wall Street Apes

309,349 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Censorship? The First Amendment? Well, it turns out Google, Facebook, and Big Tech have officially admitted they were pressured by the Biden White House to censor we the people. In other words, the Democrats carried out a seditious conspiracy to censor the American people in an attempt to overthrow the United States government—and the overthrow censored the American people how the overthrow was carried out. Pretty much this was the 2020 election!! Now, where is Attorney General Pamela Bondi ?
1:11

Censorship? The First Amendment? Well, it turns out Google, Facebook, and Big Tech have officially admitted they were pressured by the Biden White House to censor we the people. In other words, the Democrats carried out a seditious conspiracy to censor the American people in an attempt to overthrow the United States government—and the overthrow censored the American people how the overthrow was carried out. Pretty much this was the 2020 election!! Now, where is Attorney General Pamela Bondi ?

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

52,195 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Jim Jordan Rips Ketanji Brown Jackson's Concern about the First Amendment: "Hamstringing the Government" Rep. Jim Jordan: "She said you've got the First Amendment 'hamstringing the government.' Well, that's what it's supposed to do, for goodness sake. It was literally one of the craziest things I've ever seen that you could have a Supreme Court Justice say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening. because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading. Understand what took place here. This was censorship by surrogate. This was big government telling big tech to take down speech that they disagreed with, and it was the most fundamental kind of speech. It was political speech." Rep. Dan Bishop: "Do we want to have a situation in which the government, the FBI, and other agencies are constantly trying to walk a line? How far can they go to keep perfectly legal, protected speech off of public platforms? I just don't think the government ever has a valid interest in doing that." Rep. Jim Jordan: "They [federal government] were pressuring and going after speech that was true, that turned out to be accurate, and yet they were trying to take it down... The White House sends an email to Twitter saying take down this tweet ASAP. And guess what the tweet was. RFK Jr. saying Hank Aaron took the vaccine and passed away. Two true statements. They wanted to take him down, and by the way, who was that individual? The guy running against them in the primary election. That is as scary as it gets. Let's hope the court reaches the right decision." Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is concerned that the First Amendment is "hamstringing the government."
4:52

Jim Jordan Rips Ketanji Brown Jackson's Concern about the First Amendment: "Hamstringing the Government" Rep. Jim Jordan: "She said you've got the First Amendment 'hamstringing the government.' Well, that's what it's supposed to do, for goodness sake. It was literally one of the craziest things I've ever seen that you could have a Supreme Court Justice say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening. because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading. Understand what took place here. This was censorship by surrogate. This was big government telling big tech to take down speech that they disagreed with, and it was the most fundamental kind of speech. It was political speech." Rep. Dan Bishop: "Do we want to have a situation in which the government, the FBI, and other agencies are constantly trying to walk a line? How far can they go to keep perfectly legal, protected speech off of public platforms? I just don't think the government ever has a valid interest in doing that." Rep. Jim Jordan: "They [federal government] were pressuring and going after speech that was true, that turned out to be accurate, and yet they were trying to take it down... The White House sends an email to Twitter saying take down this tweet ASAP. And guess what the tweet was. RFK Jr. saying Hank Aaron took the vaccine and passed away. Two true statements. They wanted to take him down, and by the way, who was that individual? The guy running against them in the primary election. That is as scary as it gets. Let's hope the court reaches the right decision." Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is concerned that the First Amendment is "hamstringing the government."

KanekoaTheGreat

852,830 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren