Facebook Wiped A Conservative Wisconsin News Page After Wrongfully Censoring It For Months – Nwo Report


Source: Jordan Boyd

‘Every American should be deeply concerned by the fact that a few unaccountable big tech companies are controlling the free flow of information.’

acebook obliterated an award-winning conservative Wisconsin news page and cut off thousands of its followers without warning this week after wrongfully censoring it for months.

The Silicon Valley giant censored Wisconsin Right Now after the popular news site posted a story from The Australian to its Facebook feed that compared a picture of the infamous “Falling Man” from 9/11 to the horrific footage of Afghans falling from planes following President Joe Biden’s disastrous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

TRENDING: The 2020 Loss — A Blessing In Disguise?

Facebook quickly hid the post and slapped it with a community standards violation for “content related to suicide or self-injury.”

WRN appealed the violation, noting that the article did not advocate for self-harm, and Facebook reversed its decision but still unpublished WRN’s page.

A message from Facebook claimed that WRN “violates Facebook Pages terms” but did not specify why. The Big Tech company claimed that WRN could appeal if the unpublishing seemed to be a mistake but the link given by Facebook’s support team is broken.

Facebook did not respond to a request for comment.

“Every American should be deeply concerned by the fact that a few unaccountable big tech companies are controlling the free flow of information in our democracy, and that the decisions they make are often arbitrary and unfair,” Jim Piwowarczyk, WRN owner and contributor, told The Federalist. “What has happened to us is a very troubling example of this, and we call on Facebook to reverse its decision.”

Even before Facebook nuked WRN’s main page, the social media company restricted the page’s ability to invite new followers to “like” the page and live-stream videos for simply reporting the news.

Even though WRN won numerous awards for its airtight coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Facebook limited the news site’s ability to share articles about the young gunman.

“We led coverage on this case, going to the scene, interviewing witnesses a half-hour after it happened, uncovering missing ballistics evidence mentioned during the trial, and more,” Piwowarczyk explained.

Facebook still suppressed WRN’s coverage even after the media company published an analysis stating the firearm charge against Rittenhouse wouldn’t stand under Wisconsin gun laws, something the judge presiding over the case publicly ruled one day later.

“Facebook then did not remove the violations when Rittenhouse was acquitted,” Piwowarczyk said.

Facebook also enlisted the help of its fake “fact-checkers” to censor reposts about Hillary Clinton’s role in promoting the Russian collusion hoax and a meme about Rittenhouse playing video games with his judge.

“We have reported many stories the mainstream media will not, and it is highly questionable and troubling that Facebook would seek to prevent Wisconsin voters in a key battleground state (where Facebook-traced money was involved in elections) from learning all sides of the equation in the political debate and other news stories, especially as the midterm elections loom,” Piwowarczyk said.

Twitter Faces the “Nightmare” of Being Forced into Free Speech – JONATHAN TURLEY


Below is my column in the Hill on the bid of Elon Musk to buy Twitter and its implications for free speech. The increasingly alarmist arguments of the left have continued to mount. On MSNBC, Democratic strategist Danielle Moodie declared “I’m going to be honest, Elon Musk is a danger to Twitter and to freedom of speech.” In other words, more free speech is the death of free speech. She is not alone in such Orwellian takes on the Musk bid for Twitter.

Here is the column:

Twitter’s board of directors gathered this week to sign what sounds like a suicide pact. It unanimously voted to swallow a “poison pill” to tank the value of the social media giant’s shares rather than allow billionaire Elon Musk to buy the company.

The move is one way to fend off hostile takeovers, but what is different in this case is the added source of the hostility: Twitter and many liberals are apoplectic over Musk’s call for free speech protections on the site.

Company boards have a fiduciary duty to do what is best for shareholders, which usually is measured in share values. Twitter has long done the opposite. It has virtually written off many conservatives — and a large portion of its prospective market — with years of arbitrary censorship of dissenting views on everything from gender identity to global warming, election fraud and the pandemic. Most recently, Twitter suspended a group, Libs of Tik Tok, for “hateful conduct.” The conduct? Reposting what liberals have said about themselves.

The company seemingly has written off free speech too. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment. He responded dismissively that the company is “not to be bound by the First Amendment” and will regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”

Not surprisingly, selling censorship is not a big hit with most consumers, particularly from a communications or social media company. The actions of Twitter’s management have led to roller-coastering share values. While Twitter once reached a high of about $73 a share, it is currently around $45. (Musk was offering $54.20 a share, representing a 54 percent premium over the share price the day before he invested in the company.)

Notably, Musk will not trigger the poison pill if he stays below 15 percent ownership of the company. He could push his present stake up to 14.9 percent and then negotiate with other shareholders to take greater control.

Another problem is that Twitter long sought a private buyer under former CEO Jack Dorsey. If Musk increases his bid closer to $60, the board could face liability in putting its interests ahead of the company’s shareholders.

Putting aside the magical share number, Musk is right that the company’s potential has been constrained by its woke management. For social media companies, free speech is not only ethically but economically beneficial — because the censorship model only works if you have an effective monopoly in which customers have no other choice. That is how Henry Ford could tell customers, back when he controlled car-making, that they could have any color of Model T “as long as it’s black.”

Of course, the Model T’s color was not a critical part of the product. On the other hand, Twitter is a communications company selling censorship — and opposing free speech as a social media company is a little like Ford opposing cars.

The public could be moving beyond Twitter’s Model T philosophy, however, with many people looking for access to an open, free forum for discussions.

Censorship — or “content modification,” as used in polite company — is not value maximizing for Twitter, but it is status enhancing for executives such as Agrawal. It does not matter that consumers of his product want less censorship; the company has become captive to its executives’ agendas.

Twitter is not alone in pursuing such self-defeating values. Many in the mainstream media and many on the left have become some of the loudest advocates for corporate censorship. The Washington Post’s Max Boot, for example, declared, “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.” MSNBC’s Katy Tur warned that reintroducing free speech values on Twitter could produce “massive, life- and globe-altering consequences for just letting people run wild on the thing.”

Columnist and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich went full Orwellian in explaining why freedom is tyranny. Reich dismissed calls for free speech and warned that censorship is “necessary to protect American democracy.” He then delivered a line that would make Big Brother blush: “That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.”

The problem comes when you sell fear for too long and at too high a price. Recently, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) agreed with MSNBC analyst John Heilemann that Democrats have to “scare the crap out of [voters] and get them to come out.”

That line is not selling any better for the media than it is for social media, however. Trust in the media is at a record low, with only 7 percent expressing great trust in what is being reported. The United States ranks last in media trust among 46 nations.

Just as the public does not want social media companies to control their views, it does not want the media to shape its news. In one recent poll, “76.3% of respondents from all political affiliations said that ‘the primary focus of the mainstream media’s coverage of current events is to advance their own opinions or political agendas.’”

Thus, an outbreak of free speech could have dire consequences for many in the political-corporate-media triumvirate. For them, the greatest danger is that Musk could be right and Twitter would become a more popular, more profitable company selling a free speech product.

Poison pill maneuvers are often used to force a potential buyer to negotiate with the board. However, Twitter’s directors (who include Agrawal and Dorsey) have previously limited their product to advance their own political preferences. This time, federal law may force them to fulfill their fiduciary duties, even at the cost of supporting free speech. The problem for the board will occur when the “nightmare” of free speech comes in at $60 a share.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Another “conspiracy theory” comes true as Biden signs Executive Order to create a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency – Nwo Report


Source: TheCOVIDBlog.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. — This blogger, on another website, wrote about the patent application for Microsoft’s “cryptocurrency system using body activity data” on April 18, 2020.

Vaxxed zealots often make jokes and mock the non-vaccinated regarding microchips being implanted into them. There is now indisputable proof that all of the injections contain the quasi-metal graphene oxide, known for its ability to transmit radio signals. Further, VeriChip implants were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2004. VeriChip manufacturer, Digital Angel Corp., has been partners with Microsoft since 2008.

RENDING: A Large-Scale False Flag Cyber-Attack is Now Imminent

The Microsoft body activity data system rewards people with cryptocurrency when they accomplish certain tasks. The system can also disable your ability to buy and sell goods if you disobey orders. It’s a slick system that aims to control all financial transactions for every human being on the planet. But first, every human needs the software installed inside them for it to work. Those invasive nasal swabs and the injections took care of that step. Then the global banksters need a centralized cryptocurrency system that they have 100% control over. That process commenced last week.

President Joe Biden issued a vague but very telling Executive Order on March 9.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who was also Federal Reserve Chairwoman from 2014 to 2018, said that the Executive Order “calls for a coordinated and comprehensive approach to digital asset policy.” But its primary goal is to create a digital currency administered by the Federal Reserve.

Web 3.0 and controlling humanity

For those unfamiliar, blockchain is a component of Web 3.0. The earliest internet, Web 1.0, was a read-only platform in the 1990s. There were few content creators, most of whom were companies. You could search and read content, but you could not interact with said content (e.g. comment, like, etc.). Web 2.0 came along at the turn of the millennium. Yahoo! and AOL chatrooms, along with the blogosphere, were the biggest changes early on. Social media is the primary component of Web 2.0 now. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft, and a few other companies essentially own and control the entirety of Web 2.0.

Web 3.0 (circa 2014) allows individuals, via cryptocurrency, to, theoretically, own a piece of the underlying network. Thus the internet is “decentralized” and not controlled by a few companies. Digital tokens (“coins”) are the assets that represent ownership stakes in networks. These networks all have apps built on their respective technologies. All the Layer 1 tokens, like Ethereum, Solana, and Elrond, are jostling for position to be the one that comes out on top. Those who buy the tokens directly are essentially investing in the network that they believe will ultimately win out.

The main idea behind cryptocurrency is decentralization. Those who own the tokens and maintain the network control it, as opposed to Google and Facebook controlling Web 2.0. Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey obviously has conflicts of interest on the subject matter. But he pointed out how nearly all Web 3.0 companies are owned by venture capitalists and their investors. Thus the technology isn’t truly “decentralized.”

Further, there are drawbacks to a decentralized internet even if it is 100% possible. Cyber crimes will be near-impossible to prosecute. Child pornography will flow more freely. And instead of Facebook and Google policing the internet, it will be Binance, Crypto.com, Coinbase, and Ripple.

Facebook rebranded its company name to “Meta” in anticipation of Web 3.0 and the “metaverse” taking over soon. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has also been talking about the metaverse a lot lately. In other words, the old guard is positioning themselves to maintain a stake in information control when Web 3.0 becomes the norm. The fact remains, nobody can truly say who “owns” Web 3.0. So don’t expect the definition to get any clearer when the technology takes over.

What the Biden Executive Order says

The Biden Executive Order directs several U.S. government agencies, including the Department of Commerce, the Treasury Department, and the Financial Stability Oversight Council, to develop policies for regulation and oversight of digital currencies. But it’s the last provision of the Executive Order that has drawn the most attention.

“Explore a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) by placing urgency on research and development of a potential United States CBDC, should issuance be deemed in the national interest. The Order directs the U.S. Government to assess the technological infrastructure and capacity needs for a potential U.S. CBDC in a manner that protects Americans’ interests.”

The People’s Bank of China is already using a digital version of the yuan. TechCrunch reported in January that 260 million Chinese citizens (about 25% of the country’s population) have downloaded the e-CNY wallet for the digital yuan. The app had already facilitated 87.5 billion yuan (about $13.8 billion) in transactions through January. China banned all other cryptocurrencies in September, eliminating any potential competition. India imposed a 30% tax on all cryptocurrency gains in the country. The United States is under pressure to keep up with other countries adopting and regulating the technology.

Of course, CBDC’s completely fly in the face of the decentralization concept that is supposed to be the backbone of digital currencies. Regardless, cryptocurrency enthusiasts are most excited about a potential government-owned digital currency. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other digital currencies rose by 8% or more after the Executive Order was announced. It will take upwards of three years for the U.S. government to launch something like this. But if the government really expends the resources necessary, it could happen much quicker than that.

History of U.S. Presidents interfering with international banksters

Many Americans believe President Abraham Lincoln was an altruistic man who loved all people. The Civil War was fought to end the enslavement of Black people, according to many narratives. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact President Lincoln made clear that he was indifferent about chattel slavery in the South during his Inauguration Address on March 4, 1861:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

A news clip from The Daily Intelligencer, August 23, 1862, quoted President Lincoln saying, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it.”

The Union instituted tariffs on European imports, making said goods more expensive and less attractive to the Confederacy. Europe stopped importing American cotton from the South in retaliation, which crushed the Confederate economy. The U.S. had been without a central bank, controlled by unelected, nefarious people, for decades. The country was becoming too independent and was showing the rest of the world that it could thrive without the funny money of central banks as long as slavery existed. But war is expensive, and the banksters knew Lincoln would need them.

RELATED: Saddam Hussein was killed by the banksters for transacting his oil with euros, not dollars.

The banksters approved loans for the Union at upwards of 36% interest. Lincoln declined and instead printed interest-free money from the Treasury to pay soldiers. He was worried that people wouldn’t accept the new “greenbacks” as real money. But the Constitution gave him the authority to do it. Lincoln printed $450 million in greenbacks by 1862. Lincoln had to be killed if the international banksters were to regain control of the entire global financial system. They also needed to end chattel slavery to divide and conquer the country, not out of goodwill.

Long story short, Lincoln was assassinated by bankster mercenary John Wilkes Booth, chattel slavery was abolished, and the U.S. was in massive debt to the banksters. President John F. Kennedy did something similar in 1963 with Executive Order 11110. It gave the U.S. Treasury the power to print debt-free currency in lieu of the Federal Reserve. He was assassinated just a few months later.

The point is that U.S. Presidents are not allowed to mess around with the bankster’s money system. That brings us back to Biden’s Executive Order. If a centralized digital currency benefits the general populace in any way, then Biden will be dead by the end of this summer for even proposing the idea. But it appears the international banksters are in full support of it. That means a centralized digital currency benefits the fraction of 1% richest people in the world, and nobody else.

RELATED: British Medical Journal: “Why have so many African leaders died of COVID-19?” (July 21, 2021)

Nothing good can possibly come from this Executive Order or a centralized U.S. digital currency. But now it’s inevitable. President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 in 1933. It ordered all Americans to surrender their gold to the Federal Reserve right before the government suspended the gold standard. Granted forcing Americans to surrender cryptocurrency would be logistically tougher to enforce and execute. But if that step is necessary to continue a monopolized financial system, they will find a way.

We knew a government-sanctioned cryptocurrency was coming. Now it’s official. All we can do is wait-and-see how it impacts everyday life. The world has already changed dramatically since 2020. But government cryptocurrency is the final step in The Great Reset. Stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones.

Twitter Suspends mRNA Inventor Dr. Robert Malone | Aletho News


By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | December 29, 2021

After months of providing valuable Covid-19 information that runs counter to the official narrative, Twitter has finally banned Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA technology…

What went wrong with vaccinating the world? – BBC News


….poorer countries generally have failed to reserve, and buy the vaccine stock they need. Now the world is faced with a problem of
re-distribution, and campaigners say that the answer is to force drug
companies to share their secrets, in order to make manufacturing possible in any country in the world…

Global Blueprint Exposed: The Takeover of All Genetic Material on Earth – © blogfactory


By Patrick Wood Global Research, November 01, 2021Technocracy.news 24 October 2021 Introduction In 1992, the original UN Convention on Biological Diversity was conducted in parallel with the Agenda 21 Conference under the name of the UN Conference on Economic Development (UNCED). Both were held in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, and were sponsored by the United Nations Environmental […]

Global Blueprint Exposed: The Takeover of All Genetic Material on Earth

Matrix? Misdirection? Cringe? Zuckerberg’s presentation of future life in ‘metaverse’ sparks fear, loathing, marvel and mockery — RT USA News

Comment by tonytran2015: The cancer of unchecked monopolying corporate fascism has Metastasized.


Mark Zuckerberg’s ambitious vision of developing a virtual
“metaverse” – and renaming the parent of Facebook, Instagram and
WhatsApp “Meta” to match it – has everyone scratching their heads and
wondering what it all means.
Zuckerberg announced the rebranding on Thursday, during the company’s hour-long Connect 2021 virtual event, describing it as “the next evolution of social connection.” Though the technologies to make the “metaverse” happen are still in development and may be years off, the name change is effective immediately.

Also on rt.com
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg announces company is rebranding as ‘Meta’

Meta won’t erase Facebook – or Instagram or WhatsApp – but denote
the parent company in charge of all three, much as Alphabet is the
company that owns Google and YouTube, for example.

There seemed to be some confusion on that account online, however, as people who have been targeting Zuckerberg as an enemy of “our democracy” immediately jumped to the conclusion it was an attempt to hide or change the subject.

“I don’t know if Zuckerberg knows but changing your name doesn’t help avoid legal culpability,” tweeted Zephyr Teachout, a progressive Democrat from New York, adding that Meta was “a perfectly fine name for one of the dozen social networks that will be leftover after the break up.”

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) said it reminded her of “a
cancer to democracy metastasizing into a global surveillance and
propaganda machine for boosting authoritarian regimes and destroying
civil society… for profit!”

Dan Pfeiffer, former Obama aide and current board member of Good Information Inc, called Zuckerberg’s ideas “embarrassingly stupid” with no one at Facebook daring to tell him so.

made fun of the rebrand, and for a while ‘feta’ was trending with memes
involving Zuckerberg and the famous Greek cheese. The fast-food chain
Wendy’s joked they would change their name to ‘Meat.’

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted out a dictionary definition of the term in English, saying that “meta” means “referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.”

company later added the only META they will recognize is their Machine
[Learning], Ethics, Transparency and Accountability team.

Once you get past the memes and mockery, however, Zuckerberg’s presentation revealed an ambitious plan for what he called “embodied internet,”
a combination of virtual and augmented reality that will be experienced
through motion sensors, smart glasses and technologies that have yet to
be invented.


One of the company technicians he spoke with mentioned that the project will require “a dozen major tech breakthroughs” over the coming years. They were already working on things like “photorealistic avatars,” showing a concept video that looks like a deepfakers’ dream come true.


This also quickly drew comparisons to the Matrix, a virtual world from the 1999 sci-fi dystopia.

Others found the notion of a virtual reality fine by itself, but lamented that Facebook is the “wrong company” to run it. Fast Company called it “a vast platform for misinformation and disinformation,” citing as proof the conspiracy theories such as “Russian meddling” in US elections and the claim the January 6 “insurrection” was planned there by “domestic terrorists.”

“I believe that metaverse is the next chapter for the internet,” Zuckerberg argued, saying it would deliver the ultimate promise of technology, “to be together with anyone… teleport anywhere… create and experience anything.”

A future where with just a pair of glasses you’ll be able to step beyond the physical world.

Matrix? Misdirection? Cringe? Zuckerberg’s presentation of future life in ‘metaverse’ sparks fear, loathing, marvel and mockery

Since founding Facebook in 2004,
Zuckerberg has managed to monetize social relationships and create a
massive media empire. Thursday’s presentation suggests something far
more ambitious: a vision of humanity’s future beyond the constraints of
physics, even as the political forces he has himself supported continue to paint a target on his back.

Also on rt.com
Zuckerberg’s rebranding of Facebook to ‘Meta’ won’t call off the attack dogs: Our Democracy demands total submission

Google’s Wokeness Is A National Security Threat – Banned Hipster


Remember this from 2018?After a dozen employees quit in protest, Google has reportedly decided not to renew its contract for military drone initiative Project Maven

Google’s relationship with the Department of Defence triggered a civil war inside the company and cast doubt on Google’s commitment to its old motto: “Don’t be evil.”

As part of an effort called Project Maven, Google provides the Pentagon with artificial intelligence technology that speeds up the process of analysing video images. Google’s participation in the program, which critics contend could help increase the accuracy of drone-missile strikes, sparked controversy both inside and outside of Google.

As was said at the time, you’ve never heard a single criticism from these Silicon Valley Leftists about Google working with China. Or Israel, for that matter. That would get shut down immediately. What has happened is that the Silicon Valley culture has become anti-American. They do not see themselves as Americans – and many of them are not, in fact, American. The whites at Google share the same hatred of traditional America as Jews; they share the class bigotry of the rest of the Professional Managerial class, and their religion – as Yarvin memorably described it, Progressive Idealism – is virulently anti-Christian. LGBT is the new Priest class of the PI religion, as Jews were to the Boomer Liberalism of their parent’s generation. In the same way these PI’s would attack Christians for being anti-LGBT, but never Muslims for being anti-LGBT, the point obviously isn’t anything specifically to do with LGBT, it is an attack on the American people, most of whom are Christian at least culturally. Google is a major, major supporter of mass immigration. We also know that Google actively censors non-Leftist viewpoints. Google worked closely with the Obama administration to stage coups and “Color Revolutions” in Arab countries targeted by Israel. Google is inherently a political company, and it is an extension of the Democratic party. The Pentagon is seen by these people as still a part of “Red America,” thus they stage these strikes about working with them. Now we have the public resignation of DoD’s Chief Software Officer, complaining that the United States has already lost the “AI War” to China, that various DoD computer security is “kindergarden level” and specifically calls out Google for their 2018 refusal to work with DoD. Pentagon Official Says He Resigned Because US Cybersecurity Is No Match for China

Chaillan also told the FT that US national security was being compromised by Google’s refusal to work with the Pentagon on AI.

Google stopped working with the Pentagon in 2018 after 12 employees quit over a project where Google helped the Pentagon make software that could improve the accuracy of drone strikes.

In China, Chaillan said, private cyber and AI companies were at Beijing’s beck and call.

Larry Romanoff’s article, How Does China Evaluate and Choose its Leaders? Understanding China’s University System, details a system China uses that could not be more different than America’s.

When you meet some who has entered the civil service in China’s central government, you can rest assured you are speaking to a person who is not only exceptionally well educated and astonishingly knowledgeable on a broad range of national issues, but is in the top 0.1% of a pool of 1.5 billion people. China’s government officials are all highly-educated and trained engineers, economists, sociologists, scientists, often at a Ph.D. level. We should here consider that the Chinese generally score about 10% higher on standard IQ tests than do Caucasian Westerners. When we couple this with the Chinese process of weeding out all but the top 0.1% from consideration, and add further the prospect of doing the weeding from a pool of 1.5 billion people, you might expect the individuals in China’s Central Government to be rather better qualified than those of most other countries. And they are.

Aside from serious scientific universities such as MIT or Stanford, America’s most elite universities, such as Harvard and Yale, are saddled with Affirmative Action, Jewish nepotism, anti-White and anti-Asian hidden quotas, and an education that is specifically anti-American. The “Wokeness” at the schools educate the new elites to hate America and Americans, and anti-whiteness and anti-Americanism is built into the programs. It’s been noted that China’s leadership is full of engineers and scientists, while America’s leadership is full of lawyers. China’s leadership class is Chinese themselves and pro-China. America’s leadership class is increasingly not American and increasingly openly anti-American.

In China, Chaillan said, private cyber and AI companies were at Beijing’s beck and call.

China is aiming to becoming the leading AI superpower by 2030, and a March report from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence said the US was “not prepared to defend the United States in the coming artificial intelligence (AI) era.”

Chaillan said it didn’t matter whether the US spent three times as much as China on defense because it was being allocated to the wrong areas, the FT reported.

Who, ultimately, are the Chinese engineers at Google loyal to? The Indians? The Pakistanis? It’s fairly obvious where the loyalties of Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sergei Brin lie. This is what we mean when we talk about a Zionist-occupied government.At the very core are dedicated Zionists, and around that periphery are increasingly non-Americans, and all are ideologically anti-American. Similarly, the Soviet Union was controlled by a coalition of Jews and minority ethnic non-Russians, such as the Georgian Stalin. We have the exact same ruling class here in America.

The group says it hopes included in Google’s new AI policy will be the promise to never use consumer data in military operations or for mass surveillance, as well as a pledge never to develop military AI applications.

Of course, this is absurd. Google is nothing but mass surveillance. Google has, in fact, assisted China in setting up their censorship and surveillance infrastructure. Google has no issue with working with totalitarian regimes, what Google has a problem with is America and Americans. Google and other companies like Facebook should be nationalized. Regulation and anti-trust is not enough. The rest of America needs to begin the process of isolating and containing the Silicon Valley Leftist cultural plague. We do not have to be ruled by a cadre of purple-haired, facially pierced, non-binary “activists” that hate us and want us dead.

Contrast this with the Western system where politicians most often have no useful education and no relevant training or experience, and in fact political leadership of any Western nation has no credential requirements whatever, certainly not in education, experience or intelligence.

One of Canada’s recent Prime Ministers, Stephen Harper, had only a minor undergraduate degree and his only job was working in a corporate mail room when he joined the rump of a political party, became the party leader and eventually the Prime Minister. His successor, Justin Trudeau, was a school teacher whose father had been Canada’s Prime Minister many years prior, and whose only credential appeared to be a talent for working the political system. In Canada’s province of Alberta, a recent Premier was a former television news reporter, renowned more for being an habitual drunk than for intelligence or governing ability. US President George Bush was renowned for boasting that he never read any books, being nearly as painfully unintelligent as Ronald Reagan whose only credential was having been a C-class movie actor.

None of these men had a CV sufficient to qualify as a manager of a 7-11 and none demonstrated signs of either intelligence or governing ability, yet a ludicrous and absurd political system permitted them to become the CEO of nations and provinces.

An examination of the backgrounds and credentials of politicians in any Western nation will reveal mostly a collection of politically-ambitious misfits strikingly lacking in redeeming qualities. It is not a surprise that Western politicians are ranked lower than prostitutes, used-car salesmen and snakes in terms of both morality and trustworthiness. In one recent US public poll, the politicians of both houses of the entire US Congress were rated as less popular than cockroaches and lice. (1) It is accepted as a truism that all Western politicians will, after being elected, freely abandon the commitments made to the people immediately prior to being elected, political duplicity and cunning accepted as normal in all Western societies. This is so true that one US commentator recently remarked that “Of course, all politicians need to lie, but the Clintons do it with such ease that it’s troubling”. Such a thing is unheard of in China. Outright lying to the people would be fatal, but in the West dishonesty in politicians is accepted without a murmur.

America has already lost to China. What America needs to do is draw inward and deal with the parasite class that has caused so much damage in the last few decades. A country whose military is obsessed with transgenderism is not a serious country. A country who takes moral cues from pierced non-binary glorified web designers is not a serious country. Google had signaled its anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-white attitudes through their infamous “doodle” since the very beginning of the company. It’s a globalism for everyone except for Americans.

George Galloway: Facebook is fighting to the death to stop those with the ‘wrong’ opinions from being heard — RT Op-ed


George Galloway was
a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV
and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator. Follow him on Twitter @georgegalloway
How convenient that Facebook ‘whistleblowers’ are emerging at
exactly the same time as the social media giant is seeking to “reduce
the presence of politics” on the site. What this means for freedom of
speech is glaringly obvious.
If you had told me during
the years I sat with Nick Clegg in the British Parliament that the
achingly liberal member for Sheffield Hallam – later to become deputy
prime minister of the UK and Sir Nick ­– would become chief censor of
the biggest public square on the planet, Facebook, I would never have
believed it.

In the 2010 general election, when Clegg got the Liberal Democrats off to a flying start in the televised debates, “I agree with Nick” became the catchphrase of his trailing opponents. What began as an expedient has now become compulsory.

Also on rt.com
How much do we REALLY know about the background of Facebook ‘whistleblower’ Frances Haugen?

Because if you’re on Facebook and Sir Nick Clegg takes a dislike to what you have to say, you won’t be heard for long.

declare an interest. I am heavily invested in free speech on Facebook. I
have 600,000 followers on there – more than nearly all UK political
figures – and an audience for my speeches and clips etc. of many

When I read Clegg’s pronunciamento recently that he was
going to cut back on political content on the platform I saw it as a
threat. Pictures of my breakfast are but a small part of my Facebook

According to Clegg, “One
of the things we have heard from users both from the US and around the
world since the election is people want to see more friends, less
politics. So we have been testing ways in which we can reduce the
presence of politics for people’s Facebook experiences.”

Then I watched with fascination the orchestral manoeuvres in the dark
of a congressional inquiry into Facebook where a whistleblower, Frances
Haugen, was whistling a highly convenient tune for the powerful – in
the company and in the powerhouses of the establishment – and I realised
we were all being played. And that Nick Clegg is no longer a liberal.

Facebook will fight to the death to stop those with the “wrong” opinions from being heard. Cue: something must be done!

Whistleblower A was heard throughout the world. Another whistleblower,
Julian Assange, has not been heard for many a year on account of his
incarceration in Belmarsh maximum security prison in London, facing the
rest of his life underground in an American Guantanamo.

A was concerned about body-shaming on Instagram and other such
ephemera. Whistleblower Assange was concerned about bodies, quite dead,
at the hands of those like the congressional audience humming along with
confected horror at the tales of Whistleblower A.

And lo, out of
the west, comes news of a Whistleblower B. Another ex-Facebook employee,
Sophie Zhang, has volunteered her horror stories about Facebook Fake
News influencing elections all over the world.

Ms. B, a San
Francisco tribune, has not yet named and shamed, but the elections in
question are unlikely to be the ones – in Russia for example – when a
full-court NGO press was captured on video seeking to reduce the victory
of President Vladimir Putin’s parliamentary party, even if it meant
boosting the Communists!

More likely she has the likes of Donald
Trump in mind as the US rulers begin to show signs of meltdown at the
possibility of the Orange Man’s resurrection.

Also on rt.com
Facebook’s secret blacklist is a powerful tool for moderating thought and free speech, and projecting US foreign policy globally

No doubt Ms. Chang will manage to cite mysterious Ivans and Lis
who are still toiling ceaselessly to install favourable candidates in
office in a way the ENTIRE Western mass media and political class would
never dream of.

The mood music is clear. The wrong people have
turned out to be just too successful at persuading the public that our
rulers and their principal narratives are quite naked. They have no

They must be stopped. And like the famous village in
Vietnam which had to be destroyed in order to save it, freedom of speech
must be extinguished in order to preserve it. It’s the liberal way…

Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 1: The questions we should have asked of Fauci about the origins of COVID-19 — Conservative Review | Truth2Freedom’s Blog


Less than two years ago, an outbreak of a new, flu-like virus that would eventually be known as COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China. Today, almost 5 million people globally have died from this pandemic, and we are no closer to understanding how it began.

Well, that’s not entirely true. We are closer, but only by virtue of being allowed to ask in public a rather inconvenient question: Was a foreign lab that received U.S. taxpayer funding for years responsible for the start of the spread of this pandemic?

For months, this question was considered publicly taboo, prohibited from discussion (except as a topic of derision as a wild-eyed conspiracy theory) by a group of scientists who were, incredibly, some of the same people who should have been under the most intense scrutiny. The bizarre tableau would not have played out in any other walk of life. If ExxonMobil had conducted drilling operations that resulted in a massive oil leak, the media would not have refused to investigate the cause of the leak because respected scientists who happened to be employed by ExxonMobil insisted that it was not ExxonMobil’s fault.

And yet, incredibly, that appears to be exactly what happened to the most significant question that has faced our generation. The very people who stood to lose the most were allowed to hastily exonerate themselves, and for months — when important information should have been uncovered — social media companies and the media actually covered for them and are still covering for them today.

The decision to rule this topic out of bounds was made in late January 2020, just a few days after the first cases of COVID-19 were detected in Washington state. Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has perhaps done more to shape coronavirus response policy than any other person in America, was a central figure in those discussions.


It is difficult, after all that has happened over the last two years, to remember a time when Dr. Fauci was not famous, but it is important to remember that when the discussions that would shape the investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic began, the men and women who conferred with him were not conferring with the celebrity who would soon come to dominate American media coverage. They were, rather, conferring with a bureaucrat — one whom a vast, overwhelming majority of Americans could not have picked out of a lineup when he was announced as a member of then-Vice President Mike Pence’s coronavirus task force on Jan. 29, 2020.

But just because he wasn’t famous doesn’t mean he wasn’t powerful. Not only is he literally the highest-paid employee of the entire federal government, but Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) provides billions of dollars for research projects in the United States and around the world. NIAID was responsible for doling out nearly $3 billion annually in federal taxpayer dollars to research scientists between fiscal years 2017 and 2019. In FY 2021, NIAID received an annual budget of $6,067,071,000. The agency plans to fund another $3.8 billion in research grants this year, 62% of its budget.

The director of NIAID wields enormous power and influence over which research projects receive that funding, which scientists will be paid to continue their work, and which therapies, vaccines, diagnostic tests, and other technologies get developed in the competitive field of infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases. And Fauci is the longest-serving head of NIAID, having been appointed director in 1984 and supervising research both within and without the agency from that position for nearly four decades since.

So, while the average American might never have heard of Dr. Anthony Fauci