In Part 1 we discussed the very daft concept of the “armchair rioter” and explored the evidence which shows no one caused any riots by posting rumours or political opinions on social media.
Another thing that's gotten to me recently is how the legacy media in particular always use the euphemistic term 'category A' - this is emotionally meaningless to people. There should instead be vivid descriptions of what category A actually entails. Even showing people images and videos perhaps. Once you see it, you can't unsee it, and that permanent knowledge of the real existence of evil might just finally motivate people to have the entire thing shut down. I seriously doubt they could rest until that evil didn't exist anymore. Relying on the likes of 'intelligence agencies' who could shut it all down tomorrow if they wanted, is not going to bring results.
Of course, the problem is it's 'illegal' to show people this stuff. How very convenient for the Establishment child abusers...
More blather to muddy the waters even more, to make it even easier for the real evildoers to hide, while blaming us for causing all the evil instead, with our harmful internet input!
Some of "us" are guilty, but "they" are undoubtedly more guilty, and the internet is not the root of the problem.
Did the internet cause the suffering and deaths of the millions the empire targets?
If the swamp were drained, the alligators at the bottom would almost all be wearing suits of one kind or another.
If the people just realised how evil, how pervasive and how deceptive the regime really is, the problem could be solved overnight, which is what the empire fears most.
Your hypocrisy, conceit & contempt here is quite staggering.
What drugs to you take to become so glaringly smarmy & trite about informative views & reasoned debate?
I love how everything you wrote is contradictory-that really is a special skill of politicians, compulsive liars, psychopaths, gas-lighters & people who are terminally mental.
A censorship panopticon is exactly what they are trying to build! If they manage that it will probably be followed by the Bentham idea of panopticon prisons. Or maybe they will dispense with that since all they need for a censorship prison is the OSA!
On the issue of paedophilia it has been said that the issue has been brought into the public sphere as a way of drawing attention away from the numbers of paedophiles in establishment positions and instead onto the public itself as though they are the paedophiles. The 2002 Soham murders was the time when this became very obvious. A new piece of legislation demanded that everyone working with children had to have a background check to 'prove' they were not a paedophile. I want to relate a personal anecdote, which in retrospect, takes on a new meaning.
Some years after the Soham murders I took up a job working with children and vulnerable young adults and was told I needed to have an 'enhanced' background check. Not knowing anything much about it I went along to my local police station who told me they only did the usual background check and that I would have to apply to Scotland Yard for the enhanced check. When I asked what the difference was I was told that a normal check only checks for convictions whereas an enhanced check checks for paedophile convictions as well and that this information is only held on the central computer at Scotland Yard. It is also about five times as expensive as the normal check! When I asked the police why there was such a difference in price I was told, "we do not have the information needed on our computers for an enhanced check, only Scotland Yard does. I can't answer your question on why there is a big difference in price but someone is making a lot of money out of it and it isn't us"! At another police station I was told the enhanced checks are not worth the paper they are written on because a person could be charged with a paedophile offence but not yet convicted of it so the check would not show it and a paedophile could be working with children in a responsible position.
The point of all of this is, is that the Soham murders, which took place on school grounds and where the perpetrator, who was a caretaker at the school, and his girlfriend - a teaching assistant - did not have background checks because the legislation didn't exist at the time. The murders were used as a cynical ploy to keep permanent checks on people who would otherwise not be known to the authorities because there was no justification for the authorities to know anything about them at all ! This ploy basically put suspicion on everyone as being a potential or actual paedophile, thereby taking attention away from the real establishment paedophiles and allowed, encouraged or even knowingly created , a giant industry of enhanced background checks because if you changed jobs or did agency work, a new check would have to be done each time which would cost people hundreds in fees for the checks ! No doubt the money goes to government quangos which is probably partly filtered back to government so much so that people have said they have so many enhanced background checks that they could literally paper their walls with them ! It is nothing but a giant con, a way of taking attention off the real criminals in the establishment and a way of keeping permanent checks on people. The OSA is another step in the same direction only with more sophisticated machinery behind it.
Poor Tempest, busy thrashing about in speculations without the ability to do any actual deep thought or research it seems- but has plenty of time to spew lame opinions like some time vampire space invader.
What you claim is being planned is already here. Catch up, you appear to be the slow one at the back of the class still on last years notes!
Tempest is rabidly thrashing about, and now is lost in denials.
It gave itself away with the pea-dough comment, missing the point by a mile while doing exactly what the whole propaganda machine intended, and that is to HYPE THE IDEA of abuse, generating TABOOs & resultant indulgence in taboos from certain psychological profiles. Either Tempest is dangerously stupid, or simply quite overt in its agenda
.
The fact it can be so derogatory & dismissive when confronted by insight & resonant thought proves its lack of genuine aptitude and appriciation of social intercourse when it is too shallow to comprehend what is going on?
I'm not "thrashing about" in anything. I haven't actually claimed anything at all except to say that the focus on paedophilia has been switched from the establishment to the public and to relate an anecdote that is connected to the present situation. So what on earth are you talking about? And where is your own "deep thought or research" into this issue? You haven't even commented on the article but instead on someone else's comments on it ! Tbh you sound quite deranged and devoid of any thinking processes.
It looks like you are out of your depth here again Teeny Tempest having a tantrum.
You certainly spend a lot of time chatting down the police station, is that because you are a dog sucking little nark-bitch playing a game here, spreading the same old fear mongering crap? You write like a new cliche, interact like a desperate troll with no social life and lie about security checks (I know because I have worked dding such checks).
Maybe you are just another masochist or simply too stupid to realise you look like a wordy idiot while inciting ridicule from people better informed & experienced than you could ever be?
Keep going though, its always entertaining reading SurgeOns decimation of shallow posers & plants in these comments sections.
It's obvious who's triggered here and it isn't me. Funny how there's 3 weirdos who all sound the same here. Same style, same non points, same idiocy. Or is it just one who logs in and out upliking your own comments? Sad.
Nothing better to do than incite abuse today then Teeny Tempest?
Is your masochistic dynamic so compulsive that you have to make it obvious you are a shallow triggered goon crippled with hypocrisy & overt dishonesty?
These chat bot troll clowns get more obvious & pathetic by the day. I just read some of its aimless waffle. It appears to be about 11 years old with the sensibilities of yet another entitled brat middle class moron full of its own self-importance. That also seems to be the new template from team EverLyin' Bumsick & the MPD squad.
This asks the question of why Huntley would dump the bodies in full view of the control tower at the base. The same question could be asked why an American serviceman would dump the bodies in full view of the same control tower at his base? It assumes a serviceman would have detailed knowledge of the procedures and timetables of all activities at the base but that is extremely unlikely since no serviceman has such knowledge of different activities and their schedules at a base. I am not saying it is impossible that the wrong people were convicted but this is really about how the authorities have used the murder to cynically gain more control over people's lives.
Sure, just thought the similarities e.g. possible patsy, Blair kyboshing a full public enquiry, heavy Home Office participation, hyper publicity, and used for more control, all smacks of 'the lady doth protest too much' style similar fingerprints to the current psyop discussion.
The murders were not a psyop though. They really did happen. There is no evidence showing they didn't. There could be any number of reasons why Blair stopped a public inquiry. The same happened with the London 7/7 bombings, the McCann case, Jo Cox case, London nail bombings, Manchester arena bang and many others. And there might have been more than one reason in all of them. The real point is the cage the government is constructing around everyone.
Try to reply to the words I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote. I said "possible patsy" do I have to explain what a patsy is?
You highlighted the psyop aspect, i.e. it was used as an excuse for more control. The current discussion is about a psyop, but nobody is saying the riots didn't happen at all. Do I have to explain what a psyop means?
You don't have to explain anything to me but it's clear I have to explain to YOU what this particular thread and the article is about. It's about the construction of an all pervasive censorship system, or what I call a cage. It's NOT about a psyop. I suggest you read it again and keep reading it until you understand it.
I replied to exactly the words you wrote. You seem to be confused about the topic in this thread and the topic in the previous one. Twice I have had to bring you back to the actual topic because you seem to want to talk about anything except the actual topic in the article and of the thread. This is the third time I've had to try and bring you back to the topic.
Taking a step back slightly, is this policy being directed by individual governments, or as appears to be the case, are these censorship policies being directed from higher up, at Supranational UN/PPP level?
And if it is from supranational level, what is the real aim of the policies?
If global populations completely lose trust in governments, would said populations be more inclined to call for a supranational body, like the UN or 'world government' to govern the governments?
"Countries face a crisis of trust which becomes increasingly concerning amid economic downturns, health emergencies and other crises. Since democracies require citizen trust in government to function effectively, the OECD Trust Survey provides governments with the data, tools and solutions necessary to assess trust in public institutions, understand long-term trends and enable them to take direct policy action, targeted at the root causes of low trust."
Among OECD member states mosre people distrust their governments than trust them: 39% trust their national government. 37%are confident that their government balances the interests of current and future generations. 41% believe their government uses the best available evidence when taking a decision.
Is Increasing Censorship, and other generally hypocritical legislation, primarily designed to erode trust in Governments?
e.g. allowing get out clauses from primary legislation only for establishment bodies, allowing intelligence agencies and police to break laws, including murder; to allowing MSM et al exemptions from the online speech police, FOIA exemptions Vs survielence powers etc.
I don't know the answer, but the question seems worthy of consideration.
Trump is a threat to the controlling oligarchy because Trump is not owned and controlled by them, and because Trump is a populist champion of Nationalism, Constitutional Republicanism, and Capitalism, in opposition to the controlling oligarchy’s quest for Globalism, Oligarchism, and Feudalism. An even greater threat to the controlling oligarchy is the internet with its capability to enable the free flow exchange of news, information, and ideas through social media.
Freedom of Speech is THE existential threat to the Globalist Fascist Oligarchy!
A Long History of British Machinations to Control the Content and Dissemination of News and Information:
(Before Google, everyone got their info from the Encyclopedia Britannica…..)
TRILLION DOLLAR RIP-OFF: SOCIAL NETWORKING IS A STOLEN TRADE SECRET.
One of the largest government sponsored industrial espionage thefts of copyrights, trade secrets, and patents in modern times was the theft of scalable social networking inventions. The technology and programming code that underlie Facebook, Gmail, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and most the other large-scale social networking companies runs on Leader Technologies' intellectual property.
It was stolen by a group of criminal lawyers, judges, spies and bankers working with complete impunity and in total disregard for the law. Under the guise of the IBM Eclipse Foundation, James P. Chandler III (who was a national security advisor and top White House attorney) led the group of criminals who, interestingly enough, are also appearing in the news currently due to their most recently discovered crimes, along with John Podesta, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, John Breyer, James Breyer, Larry Summers, Yuri Milner, Alisher Usmanov, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and a host of others who are not so well known.
Ever notice that the new “One World” Trade Center rises 1776-feet high, looks like two open-ended four-sided pyramids with one pyramid inverted and lowered onto the bottom pyramid, and across the street is the new Oculus “All Seeing Eye” building?
Eerie coincidence, or another display of the Rothschild’s Illuminati that was founded on May Day, May 1, 1776?
See also the Rothschilds Opus One Winery that was built to look like a Masonic Compass & Square:
I had the same opinion about Trump a few years ago. Then I got concerned about his "warp speed" delivery of the scam Covid jabs. But still I gave him the benefit of the doubt until, as pointed out by someone else, he refused to pay the US bill for the UN climate accords in Paris and instead gave the money to GAVI vaccine alliance which was being run by Bill Gates! So he basically moved the money around from one issue to support another issue. Then he gave his son-in-law a role within the White House who has since made comments on how valuable beach front properties in Gaza would be if developed, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem at Israel's request thereby stamping the area as belonging to Israel, the huge amounts of Zionist financial backing he has received and the two 'assassination' attempt performances there have been recently which have been debunked as being genuine.
I am not saying (or thinking) "I can't believe you would vote for Trump". Now you have told me why a vote for Trump is going to get you all the things you have listed, you can tell me why he accepts Zionist funding, why he gave his Zionist son-in-law a job in the White House, why he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem at Netanyahu's request thus stamping the area as being part of Israel and why he moved money from the UN's climate accords to the UN's GAVI run by Bill Gates while simultaneously accusing them of dishonesty and overreach?
This is the man who Trump is suggesting could be Secretary of State in his administration:
"Kushner opined that the Gaza Strip could be “very valuable” from a real estate perspective, if Israel could forcibly remove everyone currently living there to develop “waterfront property.”
Speaking to Harvard professor Tarek Masoud, Kushner said: “It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.” Where does Kushner suggest these people go? Ivanka Trump’s husband explained that if he were in charge of Israel, his top priority would be removing the people living in Rafah—a Palestinian city in southern Gaza—and moving them into Egypt “with diplomacy.” And that wasn’t his only piece of advice: “In addition to that,” he said, “I would just bulldoze something in the Negev, I would try to move people in there…. I think that’s a better option, so you can go in and finish the job.”
"It is not presently “illegal” to express a political opinion."
Unless that "political opinion" is deemed to be such that it:
(a)expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and
(b)in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.
... according to the UK's 2000 Terrorism Act...?
Craig Murray just published a useful article on this topic entitled "Who Are the Terrorists?", pointing out that much of the 1980s anti apartheid movement could've been criminalised under this legislation for being "supportive" of what was then deemed a "terrorist organisation", the African National Congress:
Excellent as usual. Loved the podcast last night too with the last American vagabond, exciting beginning!
Oooh, have you got a link, please?🙏
Here you go! https://rumble.com/v5fjwbv-debunking-the-false-binary-with-the-independent-media-alliance.html
Thank you!
If the child abuse network did not go to the very top of the cabal/Establishment, it would no longer exist.
So long as the cabal remain in power, it will continue.
Another thing that's gotten to me recently is how the legacy media in particular always use the euphemistic term 'category A' - this is emotionally meaningless to people. There should instead be vivid descriptions of what category A actually entails. Even showing people images and videos perhaps. Once you see it, you can't unsee it, and that permanent knowledge of the real existence of evil might just finally motivate people to have the entire thing shut down. I seriously doubt they could rest until that evil didn't exist anymore. Relying on the likes of 'intelligence agencies' who could shut it all down tomorrow if they wanted, is not going to bring results.
Of course, the problem is it's 'illegal' to show people this stuff. How very convenient for the Establishment child abusers...
More blather to muddy the waters even more, to make it even easier for the real evildoers to hide, while blaming us for causing all the evil instead, with our harmful internet input!
Some of "us" are guilty, but "they" are undoubtedly more guilty, and the internet is not the root of the problem.
Did the internet cause the suffering and deaths of the millions the empire targets?
If the swamp were drained, the alligators at the bottom would almost all be wearing suits of one kind or another.
If the people just realised how evil, how pervasive and how deceptive the regime really is, the problem could be solved overnight, which is what the empire fears most.
Mutual respect is essential for integrity of interaction.
I ignore the input of those who fail to show respect for others and their input.
Hey Jaffa/ Mr Seedless
Your hypocrisy, conceit & contempt here is quite staggering.
What drugs to you take to become so glaringly smarmy & trite about informative views & reasoned debate?
I love how everything you wrote is contradictory-that really is a special skill of politicians, compulsive liars, psychopaths, gas-lighters & people who are terminally mental.
You've just exposed yourself for what you are. An easily triggered twit
A censorship panopticon is exactly what they are trying to build! If they manage that it will probably be followed by the Bentham idea of panopticon prisons. Or maybe they will dispense with that since all they need for a censorship prison is the OSA!
On the issue of paedophilia it has been said that the issue has been brought into the public sphere as a way of drawing attention away from the numbers of paedophiles in establishment positions and instead onto the public itself as though they are the paedophiles. The 2002 Soham murders was the time when this became very obvious. A new piece of legislation demanded that everyone working with children had to have a background check to 'prove' they were not a paedophile. I want to relate a personal anecdote, which in retrospect, takes on a new meaning.
Some years after the Soham murders I took up a job working with children and vulnerable young adults and was told I needed to have an 'enhanced' background check. Not knowing anything much about it I went along to my local police station who told me they only did the usual background check and that I would have to apply to Scotland Yard for the enhanced check. When I asked what the difference was I was told that a normal check only checks for convictions whereas an enhanced check checks for paedophile convictions as well and that this information is only held on the central computer at Scotland Yard. It is also about five times as expensive as the normal check! When I asked the police why there was such a difference in price I was told, "we do not have the information needed on our computers for an enhanced check, only Scotland Yard does. I can't answer your question on why there is a big difference in price but someone is making a lot of money out of it and it isn't us"! At another police station I was told the enhanced checks are not worth the paper they are written on because a person could be charged with a paedophile offence but not yet convicted of it so the check would not show it and a paedophile could be working with children in a responsible position.
The point of all of this is, is that the Soham murders, which took place on school grounds and where the perpetrator, who was a caretaker at the school, and his girlfriend - a teaching assistant - did not have background checks because the legislation didn't exist at the time. The murders were used as a cynical ploy to keep permanent checks on people who would otherwise not be known to the authorities because there was no justification for the authorities to know anything about them at all ! This ploy basically put suspicion on everyone as being a potential or actual paedophile, thereby taking attention away from the real establishment paedophiles and allowed, encouraged or even knowingly created , a giant industry of enhanced background checks because if you changed jobs or did agency work, a new check would have to be done each time which would cost people hundreds in fees for the checks ! No doubt the money goes to government quangos which is probably partly filtered back to government so much so that people have said they have so many enhanced background checks that they could literally paper their walls with them ! It is nothing but a giant con, a way of taking attention off the real criminals in the establishment and a way of keeping permanent checks on people. The OSA is another step in the same direction only with more sophisticated machinery behind it.
Poor Tempest, busy thrashing about in speculations without the ability to do any actual deep thought or research it seems- but has plenty of time to spew lame opinions like some time vampire space invader.
What you claim is being planned is already here. Catch up, you appear to be the slow one at the back of the class still on last years notes!
Tempest is rabidly thrashing about, and now is lost in denials.
It gave itself away with the pea-dough comment, missing the point by a mile while doing exactly what the whole propaganda machine intended, and that is to HYPE THE IDEA of abuse, generating TABOOs & resultant indulgence in taboos from certain psychological profiles. Either Tempest is dangerously stupid, or simply quite overt in its agenda
.
The fact it can be so derogatory & dismissive when confronted by insight & resonant thought proves its lack of genuine aptitude and appriciation of social intercourse when it is too shallow to comprehend what is going on?
I'm not "thrashing about" in anything. I haven't actually claimed anything at all except to say that the focus on paedophilia has been switched from the establishment to the public and to relate an anecdote that is connected to the present situation. So what on earth are you talking about? And where is your own "deep thought or research" into this issue? You haven't even commented on the article but instead on someone else's comments on it ! Tbh you sound quite deranged and devoid of any thinking processes.
Triggered much then?
It looks like you are out of your depth here again Teeny Tempest having a tantrum.
You certainly spend a lot of time chatting down the police station, is that because you are a dog sucking little nark-bitch playing a game here, spreading the same old fear mongering crap? You write like a new cliche, interact like a desperate troll with no social life and lie about security checks (I know because I have worked dding such checks).
Maybe you are just another masochist or simply too stupid to realise you look like a wordy idiot while inciting ridicule from people better informed & experienced than you could ever be?
Keep going though, its always entertaining reading SurgeOns decimation of shallow posers & plants in these comments sections.
It's obvious who's triggered here and it isn't me. Funny how there's 3 weirdos who all sound the same here. Same style, same non points, same idiocy. Or is it just one who logs in and out upliking your own comments? Sad.
Don't feed the trolls by giving them your attention!
Nothing better to do than incite abuse today then Teeny Tempest?
Is your masochistic dynamic so compulsive that you have to make it obvious you are a shallow triggered goon crippled with hypocrisy & overt dishonesty?
Using big words you don't understand. How long did it take to look them up in a dictionary?
Keep going troll-bot. You just keep cementing your disposition.
Also you prove you never read the comments on Iains posts before.
Did you just get recruited or are you actually mentally decrepit and feeble?
These chat bot troll clowns get more obvious & pathetic by the day. I just read some of its aimless waffle. It appears to be about 11 years old with the sensibilities of yet another entitled brat middle class moron full of its own self-importance. That also seems to be the new template from team EverLyin' Bumsick & the MPD squad.
Says he with multiple user names logging in and out all the time.
Lots of perplexing things about the Soham case.
https://wikispooks.com/iframeDocs/joe%20vialls%20articles/wells-chapman.html
This asks the question of why Huntley would dump the bodies in full view of the control tower at the base. The same question could be asked why an American serviceman would dump the bodies in full view of the same control tower at his base? It assumes a serviceman would have detailed knowledge of the procedures and timetables of all activities at the base but that is extremely unlikely since no serviceman has such knowledge of different activities and their schedules at a base. I am not saying it is impossible that the wrong people were convicted but this is really about how the authorities have used the murder to cynically gain more control over people's lives.
Sure, just thought the similarities e.g. possible patsy, Blair kyboshing a full public enquiry, heavy Home Office participation, hyper publicity, and used for more control, all smacks of 'the lady doth protest too much' style similar fingerprints to the current psyop discussion.
The murders were not a psyop though. They really did happen. There is no evidence showing they didn't. There could be any number of reasons why Blair stopped a public inquiry. The same happened with the London 7/7 bombings, the McCann case, Jo Cox case, London nail bombings, Manchester arena bang and many others. And there might have been more than one reason in all of them. The real point is the cage the government is constructing around everyone.
Try to reply to the words I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote. I said "possible patsy" do I have to explain what a patsy is?
You highlighted the psyop aspect, i.e. it was used as an excuse for more control. The current discussion is about a psyop, but nobody is saying the riots didn't happen at all. Do I have to explain what a psyop means?
You don't have to explain anything to me but it's clear I have to explain to YOU what this particular thread and the article is about. It's about the construction of an all pervasive censorship system, or what I call a cage. It's NOT about a psyop. I suggest you read it again and keep reading it until you understand it.
I replied to exactly the words you wrote. You seem to be confused about the topic in this thread and the topic in the previous one. Twice I have had to bring you back to the actual topic because you seem to want to talk about anything except the actual topic in the article and of the thread. This is the third time I've had to try and bring you back to the topic.
All should be equal under the law, or justice cannot be impartial. Bad legislation should be challenged, lawfully.
Taking a step back slightly, is this policy being directed by individual governments, or as appears to be the case, are these censorship policies being directed from higher up, at Supranational UN/PPP level?
And if it is from supranational level, what is the real aim of the policies?
If global populations completely lose trust in governments, would said populations be more inclined to call for a supranational body, like the UN or 'world government' to govern the governments?
We've seen lots of policy documents and platitudes at UN level about declining trust in goverment e.g. the OECD survey on drivers of trust: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/trust-in-government.html
"Countries face a crisis of trust which becomes increasingly concerning amid economic downturns, health emergencies and other crises. Since democracies require citizen trust in government to function effectively, the OECD Trust Survey provides governments with the data, tools and solutions necessary to assess trust in public institutions, understand long-term trends and enable them to take direct policy action, targeted at the root causes of low trust."
Among OECD member states mosre people distrust their governments than trust them: 39% trust their national government. 37%are confident that their government balances the interests of current and future generations. 41% believe their government uses the best available evidence when taking a decision.
Is Increasing Censorship, and other generally hypocritical legislation, primarily designed to erode trust in Governments?
e.g. allowing get out clauses from primary legislation only for establishment bodies, allowing intelligence agencies and police to break laws, including murder; to allowing MSM et al exemptions from the online speech police, FOIA exemptions Vs survielence powers etc.
I don't know the answer, but the question seems worthy of consideration.
"It would be naive not to consider the possibility that the drive toward censorship, we are currently witnessing, was always the intention."
Why are so many feathers flying in the online hen-house?
People are living now in places, where they fear to say ANYTHING IN PERSON, that might be reported to the foxes and get them in hot water.
This is the nature of oppressive regimes - always has been.
Flying around squawking about the censorship of online content, might not be the most productive thing to do under the circumstances.
The writing is on the wall in bold print - we just have to deal with it!
Leave it to Rowan Atkinson - he'll sort the foxes out!
Trump is a threat to the controlling oligarchy because Trump is not owned and controlled by them, and because Trump is a populist champion of Nationalism, Constitutional Republicanism, and Capitalism, in opposition to the controlling oligarchy’s quest for Globalism, Oligarchism, and Feudalism. An even greater threat to the controlling oligarchy is the internet with its capability to enable the free flow exchange of news, information, and ideas through social media.
Freedom of Speech is THE existential threat to the Globalist Fascist Oligarchy!
A Long History of British Machinations to Control the Content and Dissemination of News and Information:
(Before Google, everyone got their info from the Encyclopedia Britannica…..)
https://aim4truth.org/2019/09/13/origins-of-fake-news/
https://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-secret-plot-in-1909-by-anglo.html
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/a-long-history-of-british-machinations?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Leader Technologies Vs. Facebook
TRILLION DOLLAR RIP-OFF: SOCIAL NETWORKING IS A STOLEN TRADE SECRET.
One of the largest government sponsored industrial espionage thefts of copyrights, trade secrets, and patents in modern times was the theft of scalable social networking inventions. The technology and programming code that underlie Facebook, Gmail, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and most the other large-scale social networking companies runs on Leader Technologies' intellectual property.
It was stolen by a group of criminal lawyers, judges, spies and bankers working with complete impunity and in total disregard for the law. Under the guise of the IBM Eclipse Foundation, James P. Chandler III (who was a national security advisor and top White House attorney) led the group of criminals who, interestingly enough, are also appearing in the news currently due to their most recently discovered crimes, along with John Podesta, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, John Breyer, James Breyer, Larry Summers, Yuri Milner, Alisher Usmanov, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and a host of others who are not so well known.
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/leader-technologies-vs-facebook?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Been following AIM for ages. Pilgrim Society run USA for the Crown with Mossad "help". Trump is one of "them". https://watchmanscry.com/?p=6550
Ever notice that the new “One World” Trade Center rises 1776-feet high, looks like two open-ended four-sided pyramids with one pyramid inverted and lowered onto the bottom pyramid, and across the street is the new Oculus “All Seeing Eye” building?
Eerie coincidence, or another display of the Rothschild’s Illuminati that was founded on May Day, May 1, 1776?
See also the Rothschilds Opus One Winery that was built to look like a Masonic Compass & Square:
http://www.richardpresser.com/wordpress/opus-one-the-winery-from-hell-exposed/
One World Trade Center:
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4802093/1wtc-wtcprogress.0.jpg
Oculus:
https://wallpapers.com/images/hd/world-trade-center-oculus-g58rt2ii7agohvjg.jpg
One World Trade Center & Oculus & 911 Memorial:
https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/aerial-of-one-world-trade-center-and-9-11-memorial-new-york-us-matteo-colombo.jpg
https://www.activelifestyletours.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/13.jpg
I had the same opinion about Trump a few years ago. Then I got concerned about his "warp speed" delivery of the scam Covid jabs. But still I gave him the benefit of the doubt until, as pointed out by someone else, he refused to pay the US bill for the UN climate accords in Paris and instead gave the money to GAVI vaccine alliance which was being run by Bill Gates! So he basically moved the money around from one issue to support another issue. Then he gave his son-in-law a role within the White House who has since made comments on how valuable beach front properties in Gaza would be if developed, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem at Israel's request thereby stamping the area as belonging to Israel, the huge amounts of Zionist financial backing he has received and the two 'assassination' attempt performances there have been recently which have been debunked as being genuine.
A little history for those wanting to 'restore Palestine'.
1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state.
2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state.
4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state.
5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.
6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state.
7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.
8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state.
9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.
10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state.
12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state.
13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state.
14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state.
15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state.
16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state.
17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/d9/89/4ed989981ae5aba6592310b778ad6fb2.png
Not true. In the Hebrew Bible Palestine was known as Peleshet or Palestina. Exodus 14:14; Isaiah 14:29, 31
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/d9/89/4ed989981ae5aba6592310b778ad6fb2.png
Not according to the Hebrew Bible.
“That moment when someone says, "I can't believe you would vote for Trump”:
I simply reply “I'm not voting for Trump.”
I'm voting for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.
I'm voting for the Second Amendment and my right to defend my life and my family.
I'm voting for the next Supreme Court Justice to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I’m voting for the continued growth of my retirement funds in the stock market.
I’m voting for a return of our troops from foreign countries and the end to America’s involvement in foreign conflicts.
I'm voting for the Electoral College & the Republic in which we live.
I'm voting for the Police to be respected and to ensure Law & Order.
I’m voting for the continued appointment of Federal Judges who respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I’m voting for our jobs to remain in America and not be outsourced all over again to China, Mexico, and other foreign countries.
I'm voting for energy independence.
I’m voting for secure borders and legal immigration.
I'm voting for the Military & the Veterans who fought for this country who gave the American people their freedoms.
I'm voting for the unborn babies that have a right to live.
I’m voting for continued peace progress in the Middle East and in support of Israel.
I’m voting to fight against human/child trafficking.
I’m voting for Freedom of Religion.
I'm voting for the American Flag.
I'm voting for the right to speak my opinion & not be censored.
I'm not just voting for one person, I'm voting for the future of my Country.
I'm voting for my children and my grandchildren to ensure their freedoms and their future. “
I copied and pasted and so can you!.
I am not saying (or thinking) "I can't believe you would vote for Trump". Now you have told me why a vote for Trump is going to get you all the things you have listed, you can tell me why he accepts Zionist funding, why he gave his Zionist son-in-law a job in the White House, why he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem at Netanyahu's request thus stamping the area as being part of Israel and why he moved money from the UN's climate accords to the UN's GAVI run by Bill Gates while simultaneously accusing them of dishonesty and overreach?
I couldn’t care less about your Zionist concerns!
In other words you have no answers to any of my points.
I couldn’t care less about your points, concerns, arguments, rationalizations, whatever.
All I care about is that Kamala Harris is not elected president in 2024.
https://stopworldcontrol.com/donald-trump/
This is the man who Trump is suggesting could be Secretary of State in his administration:
"Kushner opined that the Gaza Strip could be “very valuable” from a real estate perspective, if Israel could forcibly remove everyone currently living there to develop “waterfront property.”
Speaking to Harvard professor Tarek Masoud, Kushner said: “It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.” Where does Kushner suggest these people go? Ivanka Trump’s husband explained that if he were in charge of Israel, his top priority would be removing the people living in Rafah—a Palestinian city in southern Gaza—and moving them into Egypt “with diplomacy.” And that wasn’t his only piece of advice: “In addition to that,” he said, “I would just bulldoze something in the Negev, I would try to move people in there…. I think that’s a better option, so you can go in and finish the job.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/jared-kushner-israel-gaza-waterfront-property
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/20/jared-kushner-gaza-waterfront-property-valuable-trump-israel-sot-vpx.cnn
I’m not a religious believer, but given the choice between Jews or Muslims, I choose Jews!
To Hell with Muslim Sharia Law and forcing women to wear burkas!
It's nothing to do with religion.
How about the Palestinians go straight to Hell!
That's going to solve the problem isn't it?!
"It is not presently “illegal” to express a political opinion."
Unless that "political opinion" is deemed to be such that it:
(a)expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and
(b)in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.
... according to the UK's 2000 Terrorism Act...?
Craig Murray just published a useful article on this topic entitled "Who Are the Terrorists?", pointing out that much of the 1980s anti apartheid movement could've been criminalised under this legislation for being "supportive" of what was then deemed a "terrorist organisation", the African National Congress:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/10/who-are-the-terrorists/