Western Elites Doubling Down On Censorship

NC  |  The goal of the political leadership in the US, the EU, the UK, and other ostensibly liberal democracies is simple: to gain much greater, more granular control over the information being shared on the internet. As Matt Taibbi told Russell Brand in an interview last year, both the EUçs Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Biden Administration’s proposed RESTRICT Act  (which Yves dissected in April, 2023) are essentially a “wish list that has been passed around” by the transatlantic elite “for some time,” including at a 2021 gathering at the Aspen Institute.

The same goes for the UK’s Online Safety Bill, which Kier Starmer would like nothing better than to beef up. Likewise, Canada has introduced sweeping new internet regulation through its Online News Act, which includes, among other things, a link tax, and Online Streaming Act. So, too, has Australia through a censorship bill that is strikingly similar to the EU’s DSA and even includes a punitive fine of up to 2% of global profits for social media companies that do not comply.

It’s not hard to see why. With economic conditions deteriorating rapidly across the West, after decades of rampant financialisation, kakistocracy, and corporatisation, to the extent that even the United Nations is now one giant private-public partnership, the social contract is, to all intents and purposes, worthless. Even the WEF admits that corporations, its main constituency, have turbocharged inequality. Populism is on the rise just about everywhere and angry and fragmented protest movements have been growing since at least 2019.

Thanks largely to the countervailing information still available on the internet, governments are rapidly losing control of the narrative on key issues, including the war in Ukraine and Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. Their stock response has been to clamp down on the ability of citizens to use the internet to generate, consume and share important news, dissenting views and uncomfortable truths.

 

England Doesn't Have Free Speech And Never Has....,

Slate | Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is reportedly under serious consideration to become vice president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ running mate. And, in a certain sense, there are good reasons for this: Democrats badly want (some would argue need) to win Pennsylvania. Shapiro is, by all accounts, quite popular in the state he runs. He won the governorship handily in 2022 against Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano, proponent of Christian nationalist ideas—which Shapiro proved unafraid to tackle head-on. Shapiro is Jewish and has spoken strongly about and against antisemitism, which will surely be a theme in the 2024 presidential election. Republican candidate Donald Trump wonders aloud how any Jew could vote for a Democrat even as his son hosts a fundraiser with pundit Tucker Carlson, promoter of antisemitic conspiracy theories. Republicans reportedly see Shapiro as a threat, while progressive Pennsylvania state Sen. Nikil Saval touted his “strong willingness to build coalitions with people that he also disagrees with, and to change his views and policies through that act of coalition-building.”

And yet, for all of this, there are demerits to Shapiro, too. In the New Republic, the leftist Jewish writer David Klion made the case that Shapiro could threaten Democratic unity. Some of this is for domestic reasons. (More than two dozen public education advocacy groups wrote a letter asking Harris not to select Shapiro over his support for private school vouchers.) And some of this is because of Shapiro’s stance on Israel: As Klion notes, Shapiro, when attorney general, backed the state’s anti–boycott, divestment, and sanctions law, describing BDS as “rooted in antisemitism.” 

 

The Forward described Shapiro as having been “been a fixture at local rallies supporting Israel during its repeated wars in Gaza.” And his support has remained constant in this war, too: During a radio show on Oct. 11, Shapiro said, “We need to gird ourselves for what appears to be, you know, going to be a long war and we need to remain on the side of Israel.” Since then, as the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, he has “resisted” calls for a cease-fire. This past spring, as pro-Palestinian protests took place on campuses across the United States, the governor called on the University of Pennsylvania to “disband the encampment and to restore order and safety on campus” and implied a parallel between white supremacists and students protesting their university’s policies vis-à-vis Israel and the war in Gaza. 

 

All of this could very well hurt Democratic unity and suppress voter turnout on the political left. Nominating Shapiro would also signify an embrace of an understanding of antisemitism that some American Jews contest, issuing a ruling on American Jewish political identity that many would chafe against (though so too could the selection of another rumored veep contender, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, who signed into law a bill that includes in its definition of antisemitism “the denial of Jewish people’s right to self-determination and applying double standards to Israel’s actions”). But this policy or way of thinking, if embraced by the Harris campaign—regardless of who her running mate is—could do something else, too: It could undercut the core of Harris’ very compelling argument, which is that her campaign is standing up for American freedoms. 

 

Harris is using Beyoncé’s song “Freedom” as her campaign anthem. In her first campaign ad, one can hear the song in the background as Harris speaks about the various freedoms she’s aiming to protect and expand on: “The freedom not just to get by, but to get ahead. The freedom to be safe from gun violence. The freedom to make decisions about your own body.” Advertisement If this list of freedoms is to mean anything, it has to include the freedom to speak out and protest against the United States and its foreign policy, including with respect to Israel. It’s fundamental to the very concept of American liberty. I do not mean to pit Jewish candidates reportedly under consideration to be Harris’ running mate against each other, nor do I want to suggest that all Jews should take the same position. (As you may have heard, we’re not a monolith.) 

 

But this is a needle that Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has managed to thread. Back in May, he said that he supported Jewish organizations, but he also said, with respect to calls to oust university administrators, “I’m not about calling for people to step down.” Some protesters were anti-war, he said, and some were anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, and, yes, some were antisemitic. But, he stressed, “What I support is the fact that we need to protect not just Jewish students but all students on campuses where there are protests.” That’s how it should be in America: We all have a right to speak out, and we all have a right to be safe.

Honestly Not Sure How A Turd Like This Calls Itself A Scholar.....,

chronicle  |  It is not surprising for a boss to think that employees should avoid saying things in public that might damage the organization for which they both work. It is not even surprising for the boss to understand “damage” to include making the boss’s own life more difficult.

But college faculty members have fought very hard, for a very long time, to be protected from such attitudes. They have established that, unlike employees at most organizations, they have the right to publicly criticize their employer and their administration. So it is notable when an especially prominent administrator publicly announces that faculty speech rights should be rolled back a century or so. That is what Lawrence D. Bobo, dean of social science and a professor of social sciences at Harvard University, did last week in an opinion essay published in The Harvard Crimson with the ominous title, “Faculty Speech Must Have Limits.”

Members of the faculty, Bobo argued, have the right to debate “key policy matters” in “internal discussion,” but they should be careful that their dissent not reach outside ears:

A faculty member’s right to free speech does not amount to a blank check to engage in behaviors that plainly incite external actors — be it the media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government — to intervene in Harvard’s affairs. Along with freedom of expression and the protection of tenure comes a responsibility to exercise good professional judgment and to refrain from conscious action that would seriously harm the university and its independence.

Such public criticisms, Bobo says, “cross a line into sanctionable violations of professional conduct.” If a group of faculty members, for example, decides that a dean’s policies are inimical to their institution’s core mission, and if they take their criticism to the press, then — according to Bobo — they should be properly disciplined.

Bobo’s views were conventional wisdom among university officials and trustees in 1900. They are shocking in 2024. Shocking, but unfortunately no longer surprising. The Harvard dean’s arguments resonate with a growing movement of those who wish to muzzle the faculty. Professors are to be free to speak, so long as they do not say anything that might disturb the powers that be. Those in power may not want the faculty to march to the same tune, but they do all like giving the faculty their marching orders and expecting them not to step out of line.

The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, issued jointly by the American Association of University Professors and what was then called the Association of American Colleges, established the now widely adopted rules regarding faculty speech. It specifies that when professors “speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.” The statement does suggest that professors have some “special obligations” when speaking in public, though the AAUP has long urged that those be treated as suggestive rather than obligatory. Even so, the statement merely urged professors to “be accurate” and “exercise appropriate restraint.” They “should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances,” and thus they should avoid embarrassing themselves in public by being rude or ignorant. But there was no suggestion that they should avoid airing the university’s dirty laundry.

Harvard’s own free-expression policy, first adopted in the Vietnam era, is if anything even more emphatic about the need for officials to tolerate dissent and critique. It notes that “reasoned dissent plays a particularly vital part” in the university’s existence and that all members of the university community have the right to “advocate and publicize opinion by print, sign, and voice.” Dissenters are not to obstruct “the essential processes of the university” or interfere “with the ability of members of the university to perform their normal activities,” but they are free to “press for action” and “constructive change” by organizing, advocating, and persuading. Bobo’s ideas about where the limits of faculty speech are to be found are plainly at odds with both AAUP principles and common university policies, not to mention First Amendment principles that would bind officials at state universities.

The AAUP’s 1915 Declaration of Principles provided the rationale for such protections of faculty dissent. “With respect to certain external conditions of his vocation,” a professor “accepts a responsibility to the authorities of the institution in which he serves,” but “in the essentials of his professional activity his duty is to the wider public to which the institution itself is morally amenable.” The “university is a great and indispensable organ of the higher life of a civilized community,” and the members of the faculty “hold an independent place, with quite equal responsibilities” for caring for and preserving those institutions. For those purposes, the “professorial office” was not that of an employee doing the bidding of a boss but that of a scholar answering to a public trust. The faculty’s ultimate duty is not to the college as such but to the larger public that even private universities, as charitable institutions, serve.

You Will Eat Ze Bugs AND KNOW NOTHING!!!

dogusgrubu  |  Doğuş Group, the Turkish-based international conglomerate founded in 1951, has already invested $15m in Göbeklitepe – a major archaeological site dating back 12,000 years, and home to the oldest cult structure in the world. According to the partnership with the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism will see Doğuş Group become the sole partner of the major Neolithic site.

Extending beyond a typical corporate sponsorship with a very holistic and global approach, Doğuş Group has committed to building continuous brand awareness and communications to support the site on a global level and encourage visitors from across the world. In addition to a generous donation for the ongoing excavations at the site, the 20-year sponsorship – launched on a global level in January 2016 at the World Economic Forum in Davos – includes a new visitor and exhibition centre that opened early this year, as well as the development of a new brand ID, sensory ID and sound ID to be used across all communication by Doğuş Group and the Ministry with a unique and holistic approach.

Called “Potbelly Hill” by locals for its gently sloping curves, the monumental buildings at Göbeklitepe were constructed of limestone and feature large monolithic T-shaped stone pillars, some of which carry breath-taking imagery, including carved depictions of wild animals.

The site in southeast Turkey was constructed by humans during a period commonly referred to as the Early Neolithic, when humans made the transition from hunting to gathering and farming, a process known as Neolithisation.

Following an architectural competition called in 2015 by Doğuş Group, an Istanbul-based practice was commissioned to produce a timeless scheme that would have a positive impact on the site’s environment, help underline the significance of this historic location, and re-design the tourist experience, whilst also encouraging people from across the world to visit this iconic, yet under-explored destination.

Drawing inspiration from the circular layouts of the world’s first temples, the practice envisioned the centre as a two-part structure featuring large counters for the ticket office, as well as a souvenir store, café and restrooms on one end, and a state-of-the-art animation centre on the other end, in which audio-visual and highly-technical installations will showcase the history and relevance of the excavation.

The interiors will combine visual representations with highly-advanced technology to create an interactive exhibition for visitors. With the motto of “ The Zero Point of Time”, the story of the oldest cult structure of human history will be projected on 200m-surfaces that will allow visitors to circulate throughout the space and interact freely. The mirrors on the walls will also reflect the projections, providing a sensation of infinity and increasing the impact of the experience.

Featuring a significant collection of artefacts found on site, the exhibition is designed to transport the visitor to the Neolithic era with chronological narrations that will accompany the visitor’s itinerary, whilst also setting the context before the excavation visit and highlighting the magnificence of each work of art.

The new visitor centre has been constructed using a revolutionary technique, commonly referred to as Earthwall, or “Alker” in Turkish, by which the main material is obtained by compressing earth from the area. Developed by Istanbul Technical University (ITU) over the course of the last 30 years, the technique uses both mud-brick and plaster to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions and limit the pollution impact on the environment, thus respecting the site’s legacy and the excavation’s historic significance.

The decision to use mud-bricks in the construction of Göbeklitepe visitors centre underlines the importance of protecting the country’s assets and popularizing the use of traditional, local materials for sustainability.

WHO Put The Hit On Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico?

Eyes on Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico who has just announced a Covid Inquiry that will investigate the vaccine, excess deaths, the EU Pfizer deal and Big Pharma’s ability to control the Government.

‘The Slovak public simply needs an answer. Needs an answer about… pic.twitter.com/V84S04uyan

— Kat A 🌸 (@SaiKate108) January 28, 2024

igor-chudov  |   1. The media taks about the strong motivations of the guy regarding the Ukraine war. Who is interested in Fico being killed, when viewed from the Ukraine war angle?

Clearly, not the Russians. Fico and Orban (the PM's of Slovakia and Hungary) are the only ones in the EU that do not want this war to continue. The rest of the EU is either captured by their corrupt leaders and/or are vested in delivering arms (such as the Czech Republic that has major orders now for ammunition), they want this war to continue, mostly pushed by the US and NATO. Especially the US considers this proxy war "good for business" and both the UK and US foreign ministers are doing a sales roadshow, literally stating how good it is for business (since every military contractor earns money, while soldiers of the Ukraine and Russia, not of other countries, are dying). A despicable immoral attitude, but factual. And people have become totally insensitive to this message, when they should be outraged about politicians openly talking about war like business, ignoring the devastation.

So whatever the motivators in intimidating Slovakia regarding the war, it does not serve Russian interests.

But what is the media full with already? "Pro-Russian militant group with ties to the assassin". Totally illogical. Just like the first media message that emerged about the blowing up of the North-stream pipeline, as if Russia were behind it, blowing up its own money maker. But it does fit with the media and political narrative of the collective West, the military industrial complex and some other interests I will cover in the next bulletpoints. So whatever news will now appear that wants to implicate Russia, is obviously a lie. Like so many other media news on politics, including the reasons for this war, how it's progressing and the effects on the economy. But the power of the media will have the masses believe the official narrative nonetheless, just like that "safe and effective" jab they forced on people.

2. What other controversial topics did Fico deal with that may cause him to be assassinated?

Well, the list is pretty long. He does not like the way NATO is going, he does not want to finance the Ukraine war, he does not like the Covid plandemic enforcement by the WHO and wanted to investigate it, he is opposing the LGBTQ+ narrative, so he pretty much seems to be standing up against the current rages, most of which are fuelled by interest groups in the US. I would say that he is stepping on all of the Deep State toes at the same time with this. BigPharma, the Military Industrial Complex, all globalists' plans on the future of humanity, the whole DEI concept, he is opposing all of these. So there are plenty of interests that would want him gone.

In that sense, I do not think that this assassination is isolated to the WHO or BigPharma interests solely, though they are vested of course.

3. Perhaps the most important aspect is overlooked, as we are frantically looking for the interests behind this: we are beyond conspiracies at this point. A sole gunman or a group that laid out a plan to remove a problematic leader, it boils down to the same: the sign of the times. This is our world now and it is no longer an isolated effect. Whether it's the attempts on Bolsenaro, Abe, Fico or the 4 presidents that died under suspicious circumstances at the start of the plandemic and who were the only ones opposing the WHO orders, we see that radicalization is now mainstream. And it no longer requires conspiracies, as the brainwashing has been so effective that people assume they can afford to do such horrible deeds. The general population's big part has lost its mind, as it has lost its points of reference, since there is no such thing anymore as "normal". Just look at the Eurovision Song Contest with the satanic, queer, LGBTQ+ minority appearances en-masse: what used to be considered as fringe and extreme, is now mainstream, "pop". The foundations of our society are cast down, this IS a tectonic shift and you have to be vast asleep to not be aware of it.

Almost everything that happens as an extremity, is part of a broader narrative, whether it's an isolated event or not. Just like the extremity of an assassination, the extremeties of our politicians are portraying the same narratives. I don't even think that world leaders at this point need to get their talking points from the WEF or WHO to be fully aligned or meet behind closed doors to know their answers to crucial questions, just look at the collective pro-war insanity that almost all of the EU leaders agree on. They have a certain view of how the world should go and they are rolling it out, no matter the cost. Whether it's because they have been brainwashed as "young global leaders" under the WEF as Schwab proudly stated many times, or whether the world has taken a direction of decadence in which such authoritarian leaders are being elected as the masses have an anxiety and dissatisfaction that they want to have channeled via these leaders, it does not make a difference when it comes to the narrative that results from this unified approach. And this happens on both the left and the right, authoritarianism is now universal.

Therefore, I do not believe that this one man needed to be trained for this, that there is a single group or motivator behind him, that it can be pinpointed to parties, leaders, countries or vested groups for that matter. Because I think that ALL of these are behind this, through their collective actions.

We as the people have become divided through many means, mainly (social) media. And we are now part of the problem. I do not fully agree with Mattias Desmet's analysis on the Mass Formation hypothesis (because he does not agree with finding the head kingpins that lead us to the conflict, as he believes that the problems start with us and our leaders are merely a reflection of our needs for such leaders), but I do agree with his assessment that in a time of general dissatisfaction, "free floating anxiety" as he calls it, lack of common goals, people become radicalized, even masses, not just individuals.

And this is exactly the problem. People are so divided now, that at any moment someone can perform a radical deed such as an assassination and consider it "normal", because of lack of reference point. People watch too much media as it is, especially social media and the extremities they witness daily are becoming the norm, while these have nothing to do with real life. Therefore their actions reflect this twisted world view, which in turn DOES change the world around us, making it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm afraid this person is a symptom and this will continue, even accelerate. The two people in the US lighting themselves on fire for a cause that is not theirs (the young soldier in front of an embassy shouting about Palestine, as well as the other person in front of the Trump courtcase having left messages about some financial collapse to come) are excellent examples of the insanity that people have been captured in and increasingly are, as the censorship is ramping up, to hold us back from communicating freely about facts, which would pull us back to the ground and see things more clearly, avoiding panic and fanaticism. In a sense, I see such irrational extremism emerge in the alternative media as well, where rational thinkers tend to see a conspiracy behind everything, as we too are in our echo-chambers. Most of the time these assumptions are right, but it does radicalize and make solutions on the long term impossible, where common ground needs to be found at some point with the equally radicalized oppposing side.

Like Neil Oliver said a few days ago in a podcast: the question is no longer whether our leaders have nefarious plans, but whether they will push us into destruction by coincidence, such is their incompetence and ignorance about the damage they are doing to the world. At this point, clearly they have lost control. And people are imitating their leaders, just like this lone gunman did.

The learning I think is that we need to look a this calmly and avoid a widening of the gap within our societies. People should talk more about the contested topics, instead of going full ad hominem on "the other side". Yes, there are nefarious forces at work behind deeds like this. No, the aim is not to go to war with them, because we cannot win such a war. We need to ignore them and start talking to each other more. That will take the wind out of their sails.

Populism Is The Voice Of The Voiceless vs. Nancy Pelosi's Crypt-Keeper Gas...,

realclearpolitics  |   Winston Marshall, the former banjo player from the band "Mumford & Sons", now host of The Winston Marshall Show podcast, spoke in opposition to an Oxford Union motion that "This House Believes Populism is a Threat to Democracy." Speaking for the motion was former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"Populism is not a threat to democracy," Marshall said. "Populism is democracy."

"Populism is not a threat to democracy, but I'll tell you what is. It is elites ordering social media to censor political opponents. It's police shutting down dissenters," he said.

WINSTON MARSHALL: Words have a tendency to change meaning when I was a boy, "woman" meant "someone who didn't have a cock."

Populism has become a word used synonymously with "racists." We've heard "ethno-nationalist," with "bigot," with "hillbilly," "redneck," with "deplorables."

Elites use it to show their contempt for ordinary people.

This is a recent change. Not long ago, Barack Obama, while he was still president, at the North American Leaders Summit in June 2016, took umbrage with the notion that Trump be called a "populist." How could Trump be called a populist? He doesn't care about working people. If anything, Obama argued he was the populist. If anything Obama argued, Bernie was the populist. It was Bernie who'd spent five decades fighting for working people. But Trump.

Something curious happens. If you watch Obama's speeches after that point, more and more recently, he uses the word "populist" interchangeably with "strong man," with "authoritarian." The word changes meaning, it becomes a negative, a pejorative, a slur.

To me, populism is not a dirty word. Since the 2008 crash and specifically the trillion-dollar Wall Street bailout, we are in the populist age, and for good reason. The elites have failed.

Let me address some common fallacies, some of which have been made tonight. If the motion was that demagoguery was a threat to democracy, I would be on that side of the House. If the motion was that political violence was a threat to democracy, I'd be on that side of the house. January 6th has been mentioned -- a dark day for America, indeed. And I'm sure Congresswoman Pelosi will agree that the entire month of June 2020, when the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon was under siege, and under insurrection by radical progressives, those too were dark days for America.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: You are not. There is no equivalence there.

WINSTON MARSHALL: So you don't agree, that is fine. You don't agree. That's fine.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: It is not like what happened on January 6, which was an insurrection incited by the president of the United States.

iWINSTON MARSHALL: So you don't agree, but you will condemn those days.

My point, though is that all political movements are susceptible to violence, and indeed insurrection. And if we were arguing that fascism was a threat to democracy, I'd be on that side of the House.

Indeed, the current populist age is a movement against fascism. I've got quite a lot to get through.

Populism as you know, is the politics of the ordinary people against an elite, populism is not a threat to democracy. Populism is democracy, and why else have universal suffrage, if not to keep elites in check?

Ladies and gentlemen, given the success of Trump, and more recently, Javier Milei taking a chainsaw to the state behemoth of Argentina's bureaucratic monster, you'd be mistaken for thinking this was a right-wing populist age, but that would be ignoring Occupy Wall Street. That would be ignoring Jeremy Corbyn's "for the many, not the few," that would be ignoring Bernie against the billionaires, RFK Jr. against Big Pharma, and more recently, George Galloway against his better judgment. Now all of them, including Galloway, recognize genuine concerns of ordinary people being otherwise ignored by the establishment.

I'm actually rather surprised that our esteemed opposition, Congressman Pelosi, is on that side of the motion. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-elite. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-establishment today, particularly in America, the globalist left have become the establishment. I suppose for Miss Pelosi to have taken this side of the motion, she'd be arguing herself out of a job.

But it's here in Britain, where right and left populists united for the supreme act of democracy, Brexit. Polls have showed the number one reason people voted for Brexit was sovereignty, for more democracy.

What was the response of the Brussels elite? They did everything in their power to undermine the Democratic will of the British people and the Westminster elite were just as disgraceful. As we've heard, David Cameron called the voters "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists." The liberal Democrats did everything they could to overturn a democratic vote. Keir Starmer campaigned for a second referendum. Elites would have had us voting and voting and voting until we voted their way. Indeed, that's what happened in Ireland and in Denmark.

Let's look at some of the other populist movements. The Hong Konger populist revolt is literally called the Pro-Democracy Movement. In the Farmer revolts from the Netherlands to Germany, France, Greece, to Sri Lanka, farmers are taking their tractors to the road to protest ESG policy that's floated down to us from those all-knowing, infallible elites of Davos. The trucker movement in Canada became anti-elitist when petty tyrant Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze their bank accounts, not the behavior of a democratic head of state. The Gilets Jaunes France, ULEZ in London, working people protesting policy that hurt them. And how are they treated? They're called conspiracy theorists. They're called far-right, by the mayor as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, populism is the voice of the voiceless. The real threat to democracy is from the elites. Now don't get me wrong, we need elites. If President Biden has shown us anything, we need someone to run the countries. When the president has severe dementia, it is not just America that crumbles, the whole world burns.

But let's examine the elites. European corporations spend over €1 billion a year lobbying Brussels, U.S. corporations spend over $2 billion a year lobbying in DC, and two-thirds of Congress receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer alone spent $11 million in 2021. They made over $10 billion in profit. No wonder then that 66% of Americans think the is rigged against them for the rich and the powerful.

And by the way, we used to have a word for when big business and big government were in cahoots. And I think any students here of early 20th-century Italian history will know what I'm talking about.

What about Big Tech? Throughout the pandemic, Biden's team, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security colluded with Big Tech in censoring dissenting voices. Not kooky conspiracy theorists, people like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the Stanford epidemiologist, people like Harvard scientist Martin Kulldorf, people spreading true information, not misinformation, true information at odds with the government narrative.

Need I remind you, democracy without free speech is not democracy.

This was a direct breach by the way of the First Amendment. Before COVID, Intelligence services colluded with Big Tech to have Trump suspended off Twitter. Yes, the same platform which hosted the Taliban and Ayatollah "Death To Israel" Khomeini. They thought the president crossed the line when he tweeted on Jan 6 quote, "Remain peaceful. No violence! Respect the law and our great men and women in blue." That's a quote.

You may be thinking now that Trump is a populist. You are right. He didn't accept the 2020 elections and he should have. So should Hillary in 2016. So should Brussels, and so should Westminster in 2016. And so too should Congresswoman Pelosi, instead of saying the 2016 election was quote, "hijacked."

PELOSI: That doesn't mean we don't accept the results, though!

WINSTON MARSHALL: What about the mainstream media? Let me read you some mainstream media headlines. The New Yorker the day before the 2016 election, "The Case Against Democracy." The Washington Post, the day after the election, "The Problem With Our Government Is Democracy." The LA Times, June 2017, "The British Election Is A Reminder Of The Perils Of Too Much Democracy." Vox, June 2017, "Two eminent political scientists say the problem with democracy is voters." New York Times, June 2017, "The Problem With Participatory Democracy Is The Participants."

Mainstream media elites are part of a class who don't just disdain populism, they disdain the people. If the Democrats had put half their energy into delivering for the people, Trump wouldn't even have a chance in 2024. He shouldn't, he shouldn't have a chance. You've had power for four years. From the fabricated Steele dossier, to trying to take him off the ballot in both Maine and Colorado, the Democrats are the anti-Democrat party. All we need now is the Republicans to come out as the pro-Monarchist party.

Ladies and gentlemen, populism is not a threat to democracy, but I'll tell you what is. It is elites ordering social media to censor political opponents. It's police shutting down dissenters, be it anti-monarchists in this country or gender-critical voices here, or last week in Brussels, the National Conservative Movement.

I'll tell you what is a threat to democracy. It's Brussels, DC, Westminster, the mainstream media, big tech, big Pharma, corporate collusion and the Davos cronies. The threat to democracy comes from those who write off ordinary people as "deplorable." The threat to democracy comes from those who smear working people as "racists." The threat to democracy comes from those who write off working people as "populists."

And I'll say one last thing. This populist age can be brought to an end at the snap of a finger. All that needs to be done is for elites to start listening to, respecting, and God forbid, working for ordinary people. Thank you.

Sheryl Sandberg Lies, The NYTimes Lies, None Of This Shit Happened....,

Billionaire Zionist @sherylsandberg is confronted with a @TheGrayzoneNews takedown of the report she cites to bolster the narrative of her propaganda doc alleging mass r*pe by Hamas on Oct 7

Sandberg tacitly admits that she interviewed zero survivors, claiming without evidence… pic.twitter.com/Xa7W840QOJ

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) May 4, 2024

NYTimes |  There is a scene in “Screams Before Silence,” the harrowing documentary about the rape and mutilation of Israeli women on Oct. 7, that I can’t get out of my head. It’s an interview that the former Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, the documentary’s presenter, conducted with Ayelet Levy Sachar, the mother of 19-year-old Naama Levy, whose kidnapping that morning was filmed by Hamas. The sight of her pajama bottoms, drenched in blood at the back, was one of the earliest indications that sexual brutality was part of Hamas’s playbook.

“They’re grabbing her by the hair, and she’s all, like, messed up and like, and I’m thinking of her hair, and like, in my mind I’m stroking her hair, like I’m always doing,” Levy Sachar said of the video of her daughter’s kidnapping. “We would like to think that this couldn’t be possible. That nobody would harm a young girl. But then you just see it there.”

To have a child seized, savaged and paraded this way goes beyond a parent’s worst nightmare. Here it is compounded by an additional horror: the combination of indifference and outright denial with which much of the world has treated these sexual atrocities.

Why? “People are so polarized that they want every fact to fit into a narrative, and if their narrative is resistance, then sexual violence doesn’t fit into that narrative,” Sandberg told me when I met her in New York last Thursday, hours before the documentary’s premiere at The Times Center. “You can believe that Gaza is happening because Israel has no choice; you can believe that Gaza is happening because Israel wants to kill babies. You can hold either one of those thoughts. And you should also be able to hold the thought that sexual violence is unacceptable, no matter what.”

To watch “Screams Before Silence” is to be disabused of any lingering doubts about what Hamas did. The personal testimonies of victims, survivors and witnesses are clear and overpowering, as is the photographic evidence Sandberg was shown of mutilated corpses. And some of them have scarcely been heard about outside Israel.

Sign up for the Israel-Hamas War Briefing.  The latest news about the conflict.

There is Tali Binner, a partygoer at the Nova music festival who hid in a small camper as other women were raped outside: “I heard a girl that started to yell for a long time. It was like, ‘Please don’t. No, no, stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. No. No. No’. It was like, she was asking someone to stop. What can they stop? Someone is abusing her. Someone touching her. Someone is doing something.”

There is Raz Cohen, who witnessed a rape as he hid with a friend in the brush: “Shoham, who was next to me, said, ‘He’s stabbing her. He’s slaughtering her,’ or something like that, and I didn’t want to look.” Cohen added, in Hebrew: “When I looked again, she was already dead, and he was still at it. He was still raping her after he had slaughtered her.”

There is Rami Davidian, who rushed to help people at the Nova site: “I saw girls tied up with their hands behind them to every tree here. Someone murdered them, raped them and abused them, here on these trees. Their legs were spread. Everyone who sees this knows right away that the girls were abused. Someone stripped them. Someone raped them. They inserted all kinds of things into their intimate organs, like wooden boards, iron rods. Over 30 girls were murdered and raped here.”

There is Amit Soussana, who was kidnapped to Gaza for 55 days and raped by her captor when she was trying to bathe: “He came toward me and just pointed a gun really hard at my forehead, screaming at me, ‘Take it off. Take it off,’ and punching me until I could not hold the towel anymore. And he started touching me, and I resisted, and then he dragged me to the bedroom. And then he forced me to commit a sexual act on him.”

 

H.R. 6408 Terminating The Tax Exempt Status Of Organizations We Don't Like

nakedcapitalism  |  This measures is so far under the radar that so far, only Friedman and Matthew Petti at Reason seem to have noticed it. And Petti has pointed out that the Secretary of the Treasury can designate any organization to be “terrorist-supporting organization,” so the does not think, as Friedman seems to, that any other measures are needed to allow an Administration to try to financially cripple not-for-profits engaging in wrong speech.

Note that the messaging depicting Hamas as somehow behind the campus protests has increased:

And Aljazeera has already produced evidence of Zionist groups trying to stoke confrontations at the demonstrations (hat tip Erasmus):

Mind you, not-for-profits are already subject to mission and censorship pressures by large donors, witness the billionaires who loudly said they would halt donations to Ivy League schools if they “tolerated anti-Semitism,” as in did not quash criticism of Israel. But as you will see, this is a whole different level of censorship.

First, we are hoisting Friedman’s entire tweetstorm. She stresses that not only does this bill create a star chamber when existing laws allow for crackwdowns on terrorist supports, but that it could be easily extended to other types of establishment-threatening speech.

Petti at Reason is more pointed. From This Bill Would Give the Treasury Nearly Unlimited Power To Destroy Nonprofits:

A bipartisan bill would give the secretary of the treasury unilateral power to classify any charity as a terrorist-supporting organization, automatically stripping away its nonprofit status….

In theory, the bill is a measure to fight terrorism financing…

Financing terrorism is already very illegal. Anyone who gives money, goods, or services to a U.S.-designated terrorist organization can be charged with a felony under the Antiterrorism Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And those terrorist organizations are already banned from claiming tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. Nine charities have been shut down since 2001 under the law.

The new bill would allow the feds to shut down a charity without an official terrorism designation. It creates a new label called “terrorist-supporting organization” that the secretary of the treasury could slap onto nonprofits, removing their tax exempt status within 90 days. Only the secretary of the treasury could cancel that designation.

In other words, the bill’s authors believe that some charities are too dangerous to give tax exemptions to, but not dangerous enough to take to court. Although the label is supposed to apply to supporters of designated terrorist groups, nothing in the law prevents the Department of the Treasury from shutting down any 501(c)(3) nonprofit, from the Red Cross to the Reason Foundation.

Petti explains that an initial target appears to be Students for Justice in Palestine, which he says have not had enough of an attack surface to be targeted under current law; in fact, Florida governor DeSantis had to shelve a plan to shut down Students for Justice in Palestine when confronted with a lawsuit.

Petti explains that his concerns are not unwarranted:

Under the proposed bill, murky innuendo could be enough to target pro-Palestinian groups. But it likely wouldn’t stop there. After all, during the Obama administration, the IRS put aggressive extra scrutiny on nonprofit groups with “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their names. And under the Biden administration, the FBI issued a memo on the potential terrorist threat that right-wing Catholics pose.

The Charity and Security Network, a coalition of charities that operate in conflict zones, warned that its own members could be hindered from helping the neediest people in the world.

“Charitable organizations, especially those who work in settings where designated terrorist groups operate, already undergo strict internal due diligence and risk mitigation measures and…face extra scrutiny by the U.S. government, the financial sector, and all actors necessary to operate and conduct financial transactions in such complex settings,” the network declared in November. “This legislation presents dangerous potential as a weapon to be used against civil society in the context of Gaza and beyond.”

Recall how the US has fired on Médecins Sans Frontières staff who were according to the US, assisting bad guys in their relief efforts? Financial sanctions are so much tidier.

I urge readers, and particularly donors, to alert the fundraising and executive staff at not-for-profits, particularly the journalistic sort, so they can object to this legislation. It would likely not survive a Supreme Court challenge in its current form, but that’s an awfully heavy load to have to carry, plus the legislation might not be subject to an injunction in the meantime.

Now That The Spectacular Dr. Chelsea Clinton Is On The Case - I'm All In!!!

stanford  |  In a special episode recorded in front of a live audience, Dean Lloyd Minor welcomes Chelsea Clinton, a bestselling author and an advocate for public health and early childhood education. They discuss the importance of accountability for scaling global health initiatives, and the power of storytelling to counter misinformation in science and health. They also talk about finding motivation through conscious optimism and rebuilding public trust through support of individuals, families, and communities. Along the way, they share memories of Chelsea’s time as a Stanford undergraduate and their overlapping memories of their home state of Arkansas.

Chelsea Clinton is vice chair of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative, working to improve lives, inspire emerging leaders, and increase awareness around public health issues. At the foundation, she is active in the early child initiative Too Small to Fail, which supports families with resources to promote early brain and language development; and the Clinton Global Initiative University, a global program that empowers student leaders to turn their ideas into action. A longtime public health advocate, Chelsea uses her platform at the Clinton Health Access Initiative to address vaccine hesitancy, childhood obesity, and health equity. In addition to her foundation work, Chelsea also teaches at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health and has written several books for young readers, including the #1 New York Times bestseller She Persisted: 13 American Women Who Changed the World. She is also the co-author of The Book of Gutsy Women and Grandma’s Gardens with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton and of Governing Global Health: Who Runs the World and Why? with Devi Sridhar. Chelsea’s podcast, In Fact with Chelsea Clinton, premiered in 2021, and she is a co-founder of HiddenLight Productions. Chelsea holds a bachelor’s degree from Stanford, a master of public health degree from Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, and both a master of philosophy degree and a doctorate in international relations from Oxford University. 

Oligarchs Unaccustomed To Online Rough And Tumble Despise Free Speech

endoftheamericandream  |  The freedom to say whatever we want is one of the most fundamental rights in a free society.  If we are not free to speak up, it is is just a matter of time before all of our other rights are taken away as well.  So it should deeply alarm all of us that free speech is under attack like never before.  Much of the population has become convinced that “hate speech” is a special class of speech that does not deserve protection.  Of course in practice “hate speech” ends up being whatever forms of expression that the leftist elite hate.  That is why “hate speech” laws are always written so vaguely.  That way they can be used to go after whoever the leftist elite feel like going after at the time. 

It is not always easy to have a society where people are allowed to say whatever they want.  People say things all the time that deeply, deeply offend me.  And there are some that have said things about me that are tremendously hateful and untrue.

But if we are going to have a free society, people have got to be free to say whatever they want.  So we should never support freedom of speech being taken away from anyone, because once we start going down that slippery slope it is just a matter of time before they come after our freedom to say what we want.

That is why what is happening in the state of Washington is so alarming.  A new law would allow private individuals to collect up to $2,000 every time they report someone to the new “hate crimes and bias incidents hotline”…

Senate Bill 5427, after it is signed into law, would allow private individuals (note: this is not limited to American citizens) to report “bias incidents*” (see definition below) to the State Attorney General’s Office, with the possibility of receiving up to $2,000 of taxpayers money for this noncriminal incident. The bill was very clear: this is a non-crime which they will then forward to local law enforcement to investigate. What’s to investigate? No crime, no investigation.

The Progressives & Marxists who sponsored this bill say it is intended to help “victims of hate crimes” before a crime even happens. Say what? In reality, SB 5427 would create a “tattletale hotline,” undermine legitimate criminal investigations, and freeze, not just chill, speech & the press in Washington State. People will stop talking to others and writing to others except very close friends & relatives, for fear a greedy “Karen” will report them to Washington’s version of the Gestapo.

This is crazy.

Do we live in East Germany now?

It has been pointed out that those that use social media could make a fortune reporting their fellow citizens to the new “tattletale hotline”…

“Spend five minutes on Twitter on any given day and I assure someone would say something offensive under this law that we could call a ‘hate crime’ and collect $2,000 from the attorney general,” Conservative Ladies of Washington Founder and President Julie Barrett told the Senate Ways and Means Committee at a Feb. 20 public hearing. “It potentially target[s] people for actions they don’t like, but are not actually hate crimes. In collaboration with bills like HB 1333, this would create sort of a ‘tattletale hotline’ to report people one doesn’t agree with or doesn’t like.”

Of course we have seen similar efforts in other states.

In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul intends to massively expand the hate crime laws in her state…

Governor Kathy Hochul today highlighted her groundbreaking State of the State proposal to expand the list of charges eligible to be prosecuted as hate crimes and announced grant funding to strengthen safety and security measures at nonprofit, community-based organizations at risk of hate crimes or attacks because of their ideology, beliefs, or mission.

“The rising tide of hate is abhorrent and unacceptable – and I’m committed to doing everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe,” Governor Hochul said. “Since the despicable Hamas attacks of October 7, there has been a disturbing rise in hate crimes against Jewish and Muslim New Yorkers. In recent years we’ve seen hate-fueled violence targeting Black residents of Buffalo and disturbing harassment of AAPI and LGBTQ+ individuals on the streets of New York City. We will never rest until all New Yorkers feel safe, regardless of who they are, who they love, or how they worship.”

And in Michigan, last year a bill was introduced that would have made it a felony if someone felt “terrorized, frightened, or threatened” by your words…

What Happened To Jon Stewart?

twitter  |  In which Jon Stewart tries to convince you crime and urban decay are simply “the price of freedom” and Russia’s clean streets and subways are only possible because of political repression—a total crock, and he knows it. America could easily enjoy those things too, and has in the past.

The idea here is just to use the bogeyman Putin to reconcile Americans to their own social decline by making them reflexively suspicious of high-trust societies, and associate any attempts to stem/reverse the problem (or even draw attention to it) with authoritarianism. “Don’t believe your lying eyes and draw the obvious conclusions—that’s what fascists do!”

No, actually, we don’t have to accept “urinal caked chaotic subways” to protect our liberty. Incredibly stupid and insidious argument by Stewart.

Internet Free Speech Was An Instrument Of Statecraft - Until It Wasn't....,

Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. "What I’m describing is military rule," says Mike Benz. "It’s the inversion of democracy." pic.twitter.com/hDTEjAf89T

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 16, 2024

UNREAL: The censorship technologies originally intended for terrorist organizations have been weaponized against the American people.

TUCKER CARLSON: “So you’re saying the Pentagon, our Pentagon, the US Department of Defense, censored Americans during the 2020 election cycle?”

MIKE BENZ: “Yes. The two most censored events in human history, I would argue, to date, are the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Benz calls artificial intelligence-based censorship technologies, which were created by DARPA to take on ISIS, “WEAPONS OF MASS DELETION.”

That technology, Benz says, has “the ability to censor tens of millions of posts with just a few lines of code.”

Benz detailed how the government-funded Virality Project identified 66 dissident narratives related to COVID-19, breaking them down into sub-claims for monitoring and censorship through machine learning models, aiming to control the spread of information harmful to official narratives or individuals like Tony Fauci.

“And whenever something started to trend that was bad for what the Pentagon wanted or was bad for what Tony Fauci wanted, they were able to take down tens of millions of posts. They did this in the 2020 election with mail-in ballots.”

The U.S. Operates An Unbeatable Propaganda Machine

caityjohnstone  |  In a “fact-checking” article titled “5 lies and 1 truth from Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson”, Politico Europe labels the above claim a lie on the basis that Russia has state-run media whereas US media is privately owned.

“The biggest news media companies are privately owned and operate without direct government control, in contrast to the state-controlled media landscape in Russia,” writes Politico’s Sergey Goryashko. “Russian state TV and the primary news agencies there are the property of the government, and the Kremlin controls other media or destroys those not willing to collaborate.”

At the bottom of the article is a line which reads as follows: “Sergey Goryashko is hosted at POLITICO under the EU-funded EU4FreeMedia residency program.”

EU4FreeMedia is a European Union narrative management operation set up to help integrate “Russian journalists in exile” into leading European publications, ie to provide maximum media amplification to Russian expats who have a bone to pick with the current government in Moscow. It is run with participation from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a US government-funded media op under the umbrella of the US propaganda services umbrella USAGM.

I really couldn’t have come up with a more perfect illustration of what I’m talking about here than the US government and its European lackeys running a complex and elaborate project to further slant European media against the Russian Federation, which then manifests as a Politico article calling Putin a liar and claiming propaganda does not exist in the west.

There’s an old joke that goes like this:

A Soviet and an American are on an airplane seated next to each other.

“Why are you flying to the US?” asks the American.

“To study American propaganda,” replies the Soviet.

“What American propaganda?” asks the American.

“Exactly,” the Soviet replies.

In reality the nature of the US-centralized empire allows it to run a massive, nonstop international propaganda campaign through mass media platforms which are mostly privately owned. A diverse network of factors feeds into this dynamic which I’ve detailed in my unusually lengthy article “15 Reasons Why Mass Media Employees Act Like Propagandists”, but the gist of it is that anyone who’s wealthy enough to control a mass media platform is going to have a vested interest in preserving the status quo upon which their wealth is premised, and they will cooperate with establishment power structures in various ways toward that end.

The fact that these mass media outlets look independent but function as propaganda organs for the US empire allows its propaganda to fly into people’s minds without triggering any gag reflex of critical thinking or skepticism, which wouldn’t be the case if people knew those outlets were feeding them propaganda. Propaganda only really has persuasive power if you don’t know it’s happening to you.