reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), is calling for harsh measures against anyone who opposes the globalist agenda, including imprisonment and reeducation. Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who now works for the WEF, claims that censorship is necessary to protect free speech. The elites are pushing for a world government and believe they are gods. They want to eliminate alternative opinions and debate. The UK has passed a law allowing authorities to punish citizens who share "fake news" or labeled misinformation on social media, with fines up to £18 million and the power to imprison non-compliant individuals. The WEF is also urging governments to build COVID concentration camps. The globalist elite have plans for more pandemics and depopulation. However, people are starting to wake up to their agenda.

Governments are increasingly collaborating to suppress free speech, particularly in the US and UK, as revealed by new documents. This global effort involves over 20 countries and organizations like the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which are working to label and criminalize dissent. Legal frameworks such as the UK Online Safety Act and proposed US legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act (COSA) aim to regulate online content under the guise of protecting children, potentially infringing on free speech rights. These measures may require age verification, threatening online anonymity. The involvement of intelligence agencies and the push for digital IDs raise concerns about surveillance and censorship. Critics argue that these laws violate the First Amendment and question the effectiveness of such regulations in genuinely protecting vulnerable populations.

Foreign governments are using their own laws to censor information for Americans, like the EU's Digital Services Act, which threatens companies with fines if they don't comply. We've requested communications between these foreign entities and tech companies to reveal this pressure. We're also sending letters to the UK, EU, and Brazil to put them on notice that we're watching their actions. It's unacceptable for foreign governments to undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans. We saw this with the Biden administration pressuring companies to censor, which thankfully has been stopped. Free speech is a core value of Western civilization, and we must protect it. We're aiming to safeguard the rights of Americans and help companies resist these shakedowns.

The UK is allegedly criminalizing free speech, with pro-Palestinian activism highlighting authoritarianism. People are being arrested for protesting, raising concerns about free speech, regardless of the issue. The Terrorism Act 2000 is being leveraged, potentially leading to 14-year jail terms for expressing support of Palestine. George Monbiot warned in 2001 that the act could be used to ban nonviolent protest groups. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who once admired the suffragettes, is now using the act, possibly influenced by pro-Israel lobbyists. The UK is becoming increasingly repressive, augmenting anti-protest laws, granting police greater powers to stifle dissent. Autonomous weapon systems and facial recognition technology are increasing the power imbalance between the state and citizens. The speaker advocates for decentralization, mass localization, and new political alliances, suggesting a third party funded by Elon Musk. He envisions parallel economies and urges people to prioritize fundamental agreements and consider living more independently.

The Rockefeller document outlines how governments will gain totalitarian control through a virus, continuing authoritarian control even after the pandemic fades. In the UK, the government is imprisoning people for critical tweets and secretly ordered Apple to create a backdoor for encrypted iCloud data, affecting 2,000,000,000 users worldwide. Apple had to weaken encryption or withdraw services from the UK. The UK's actions are part of a broader globally orchestrated censorship agenda, criminalizing dissent and censoring free speech. The UK's Online Safety Bill criminalizes encrypted messaging, while the EU's Digital Services Act allows governments to shut down online content. Leaked documents show coordination between UK intelligence and the US to censor online speech.

Speaker 1 outlines concerns about Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act of 2026, asserting that if it becomes law, the Government of Canada will be able to secretly order Apple to build in a capability into its infrastructure to allow Canadian law enforcement and national security authorities to track every iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPod, and AirTag in real time. This capability would enable authorities to require Apple to confirm whether it provides any services to a user, and to obtain device identifiers for all devices used with those services. The process could involve going to a justice of the peace and obtaining an order without any requirement that a crime has been or will be committed, effectively mandating Apple to hand over moment-by-moment locations for all user devices. The speaker further notes that with that secret order, Apple would be compelled to provide the moment-by-moment locations of all devices associated with a user, based on the digital ID tied to iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPod, Apple TV, and AirTag. In addition, the order would require Apple to maintain location history for a full year, enabling cops to access that historical data as well. The overarching concern highlighted is whether such expansive powers—secret orders, real-time tracking, access to device identifiers and services, and a year-long location history—are desirable for Canadian police and law enforcement. Speaker 0 interjects with a prompting remark, inviting the audience to consider the implications and framing the discussion as a best attempt to evaluate the issue. The dialogue centers on the potential reach of government surveillance powers under the proposed act, the mechanisms by which these powers could be exercised (secret orders and judiciary involvement), and the practical consequences of requiring a tech company to reveal comprehensive location data and device identifiers without demonstrating a crime or imminent wrongdoing. The core issue presented is whether granting law enforcement such pervasive, real-time, and historical access to users’ device data aligns with acceptable governance and privacy standards in Canada.

A Brazilian court ordered Twitter to block accounts, but Elon Musk defied it, risking revenue loss. Brazil faces censorship and potential dictatorship by the Supreme Court and President Lula. The court demanded private user data, leading to fear and self-censorship. Other tech companies also betrayed Brazilians by providing data without court orders. Brazilians must confront the tyranny and demand action from senators to protect free speech. It's time to bring back the light in Brazil.

The UK's Online Safety Act, similar to laws in Australia and proposed legislation in the US (COSA), aims to regulate online content, ostensibly to protect children. Critics argue it grants the government power to define and remove "harmful" content, potentially censoring dissent. The act pressures encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal to monitor user chats, possibly requiring the breaking of end-to-end encryption. Age verification measures, including face scans and government IDs, are required for sites with adult content, but could expand to all user-generated platforms, raising privacy concerns. Critics argue criminals will bypass the law while law-abiding citizens face surveillance and censorship. The act allows Ofcom to order takedowns or block websites, granting the government indirect control over online speech. The UK government is reportedly using the act to censor protest footage. Concerns are raised about politicians being targeted for questioning government policies. Similar legislation is underway in the US, and the UN aims to implement a global social credit system. Australia will implement age checks from search engines. Apple has patented technology to identify people by body parts, even when their face isn't visible. These steps are seen as incremental moves towards a digital gulag, with governments controlling online activity and purchases.

Governments worldwide are imposing strict regulations on social media platforms, potentially ending freedom of speech. The European Union aims to give NGOs and state sponsors control over content moderation by requiring tech companies to share data with vetted researchers. In the US, the RESTRICT Act threatens severe penalties for accessing blacklisted websites through virtual private networks. Ireland may imprison citizens for possessing material deemed hateful, while Canada allows state agencies to filter online content. Australia grants government officials the power to compel social media companies to remove posts. These policies have been introduced quietly, with little media coverage or public outcry. This marks a significant moment in the history of the internet, as governments gain the ability to control the information people have access to.

The censorship industrial complex persists in Europe, Australia, Britain, and Brazil, pushing for digital identification linked to social media. I faced a criminal investigation in Brazil after publishing the Twitter files. The European Commission is using the Digital Services Act to pressure platforms like X and Facebook to censor speech, threatening massive fines for non-compliance. Despite some victories for free speech, global elites see online censorship as crucial for global governance. NATO, the European Commission, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, the UN, WHO, WEF, and various US agencies have all advocated for censorship. US deep state agencies have been manipulating global news for two decades, using counterterrorism tactics against Americans post-2016. I urge Congress to defund the censorship industrial complex and investigate its funding, including through shell organizations. Congress should also protect American social media users from censorship demands by Europe, Britain, and Brazil.

Governments worldwide are using hate speech and misinformation as excuses to censor and control their political opponents. In Ireland, proposed hate speech laws could allow police to invade homes and seize electronics. In Canada, Trudeau's legislation could lead to life imprisonment for speech deemed offensive. The Biden administration is working with groups to censor content and individuals on social media. This focus on labeling content as extremist is dangerous, as it criminalizes speech and can lead to unjust suppression of protests. This trend towards censorship is totalitarian and reminiscent of the dystopian concept of precrime. The reasons behind these actions remain unclear. Translated: Governments globally are using hate speech and misinformation to justify censoring political opponents. Proposed laws in Ireland and Canada could lead to invasive measures and harsh penalties for speech. The Biden administration is collaborating with groups to censor content and individuals on social media. This trend is dangerous and can suppress protests unfairly. The motives behind these actions are uncertain.

Britain's ties to Israel are deep, with Israeli companies controlling key UK functions like intelligence and police services. Israeli influence extends to companies like Cellebrite and NICE Systems used by British police and the Foreign Office. The UK Israel Tech Hub, funded by British taxpayers, facilitates Israeli tech companies' takeover of public sector contracts. Larry Ellison's Oracle stores UK data, while Israeli businessman Patrick Drahi's stake in British Telecom raises national security concerns. The trilateral security state of the US, Israel, and Britain compromises British sovereignty. Pushback is needed, with alternative media platforms like Double Down News playing a crucial role. Support for such platforms is essential.

Power corrupts. “Power corrupts. We’ve seen that all across the world.” “Today’s misinformation is always tomorrow’s truth.” and “It’s always the government who wants to censor people who are critical of the government.” He contrasts US free speech with Europe’s clampdown, arguing that “When Elon bought Twitter, now it's a place where the first amendment and free speech are right where they need to be,” while Europe’s “Online Safety Act” and “EU’s Digital Services Act” aim to “shake down American tech companies,” a policy stance he says is “not how our First Amendment works.” He cites UK “12,183 arrests for offensive post online,” Heathrow detentions of a comedian, and Poland for “liking a video,” urging press transparency: “the answer to stupid speech, bad speech, and wrong speech is more speech,” and suggesting remedies: “highlight the facts out there, and you show how ridiculous it is,” plus trade talks and potential sanctions on Ofcom. He references the “disinformation governance board,” the “GARM” debate, and the spillover effect on American content.

The speaker claims that 99% of phones worldwide are being tracked by governments through push notifications. The US government allegedly has a gag order on the two largest phone companies to keep this information hidden. Senator Ron Wyden states that foreign governments have reached out to Google and Apple for push notification data. These notifications, which appear on the screen, are sent from the app to a cloud server and then to the phone. The governments are requesting this data from Google and Apple, potentially including text information, metadata, and location details. The speaker suggests that the lack of coverage on this issue may be due to the influence of advertising and algorithms controlled by Apple and Google.

The UK has created the National Internet Intelligence Investigations Team to monitor anti-migrant social media posts, purportedly to detect unrest. Critics argue this is a crackdown on free speech, citing instances of individuals receiving lengthy prison sentences for online activity. One example given is a woman imprisoned for 31 months for a tweet, longer than a child rapist's sentence. The EU's Digital Services Act and similar efforts in Canada, Brazil, and Ireland are also mentioned as part of a broader strategy to pressure social media companies into censoring content globally. These measures are seen as targeting populist movements critical of mass migration. Concerns are raised about Americans facing potential arrest in Europe for expressing controversial opinions online. Trump has imposed tariffs on Brazil because of their censorship. The goal, it's claimed, is to instill fear and self-censorship, mirroring the dystopian world of George Orwell's 1984.

In Brazil, X Corporation (formerly Twitter) defied a court order to block accounts, risking revenue loss. Elon Musk criticized Brazil's move towards dictatorship, citing censorship and violation of rights. The Supreme Court and President Lula are accused of interfering in elections through censorship. Executives of tech companies allegedly provided private data to the government. Brazilians fear speaking out against the government's actions. It's urged for Brazilian senators and people to confront the tyranny. The situation is likened to past struggles against dictatorship.

The speaker expresses gratitude for support and acknowledges the British government's request for big tech platforms to censor online content. They mention the Online Safety Bill, a UK law granting surveillance and censorship powers. The Trusted News Initiative, a collaboration between big tech and legacy media, is discussed as a means to target and control independent media. The speaker urges viewers to follow them on Rumble, a platform committed to free speech. They mention upcoming discussions on deep state and corporate collusion, military-industrial complex, big pharma's influence on government policy, and media corruption and censorship. The speaker asks for support on Rumble to maintain their independent voice.

The government's involvement in big tech censorship is a severe violation of civil liberties. The Biden administration's actions led to a decrease in social media impressions. Cases like Genghis v. HHS and Missouri v. Biden highlight government influence on tech companies to silence certain voices. Experts like Bhattacharya and Kulldorff faced censorship for their views on lockdowns. The government's constant direction to social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to control information is concerning.

Foreign governments are using acts like the Digital Services Act to censor information globally, pressuring companies to take down content and threatening fines if they don't comply. We've requested communications between the EU, UK, and Brazil with these companies to see what pressure has been applied. We're sending letters to the UK, EU, and Brazilian Supreme Court, putting them on notice that we're monitoring their actions. It's one thing to censor their own citizens, but impacting the First Amendment rights of Americans is a problem, especially when companies are pressured with fines. We saw this when the Biden administration pressured companies to censor, which they later regretted. Free speech is essential, and we must protect it for Americans, especially against foreign interference.

They're aggressively ramping up control as more people awaken to the situation. This urgency stems from a closing window of opportunity, leading to louder critical voices. Current issues include the establishment of "15-minute ghettos" in places like Great Britain and Ireland, and the suppression of farmers, which threatens food production. The sudden acquisition of farmland by figures like Bill Gates raises concerns about food control and its implications for the populace. Additionally, the push for digital identity and currency is about government control, reminiscent of China's social credit system. This could lead to severe consequences, such as losing access to resources if one refuses certain mandates. Overall, the trajectory points toward a totalitarian surveillance state.

Governments worldwide are following a totalitarian control agenda outlined in the Rockefeller Foundation's "Lockstep" document. The UK government, in particular, is leading the charge, secretly ordering Apple to create a backdoor for encrypted iCloud data, affecting 2 billion users worldwide. This order, issued under the Investigatory Powers Act, is a global privacy nightmare. Apple faces a difficult choice: comply and weaken encryption globally, or withdraw services from the UK. This move ties into a broader censorship agenda, including the UK's Online Safety Bill and the EU's Digital Services Act, which criminalize dissent and censor free speech. Governments are using tech companies as enforcement arms, threatening citizens for online criticism, highlighting a war on encryption and control.

Elon Musk is facing criticism for not removing a stabbing video from his platform globally. An Australian senator called for Musk to be jailed, sparking a debate on global internet censorship. Australia's top internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, boasts of her censorship powers and leads a global online safety regulators network with other countries. Grant aims to crack down on VPNs and privacy to control online content. European Union's Vera Jurova supports censorship to prevent events like January 6th. These actions raise concerns about government control over the internet worldwide.

The UK plans to imprison citizens for up to 15 years for viewing what the government labels as far-right propaganda online. This raises significant questions about the control over online algorithms and the consequences of inadvertently encountering such content. Who defines what constitutes far-right propaganda? Given current standards, even posts by figures like JK Rowling could be classified this way. Concerns also arise about the enforcement of these laws, reminiscent of existing social media regulations on hate speech and misinformation. The situation seems to be escalating rapidly, prompting a call for awareness and support from those observing these developments.

The UK is attempting to demand that everyone download spyware that checks messages against a database of permissible content, setting a dangerous precedent for authoritarian regimes. Encryption either protects everyone, or it allows access to malicious actors, including governments and hackers. While child abuse is concerning, there are existing law enforcement tools and underfunded child welfare services that should be prioritized. It's important to ask how platforms enforce their terms of service against illegal use, but we are not an enforcement agency. We are a technology platform working to provide private communication. We need to check large tech companies on changing the norms for human communication to be completely surveilled. We're trying to keep the default of privacy that has existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

Government officials allegedly coerced Facebook and Twitter to censor posts via threatening emails, according to the transcript. A Biden White House official, Rob Flaherty, purportedly sent explicit threats to Facebook demanding content removal. High-ranking government officials had a special portal to flag content to senior executives at Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, outsourcing censorship. Universities like Stanford and the University of Washington were allegedly used to flag "wrong think," which then led to government pressure on social media companies. The speaker asserts this network, like the "story of COVID," was about power and control, with entities exceeding their authority. The OSHA vaccine mandate is cited as an example of an agency overstepping its original purpose.