I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that. Although intuitively something about that statement felt wrong, I thought maybe it’s just my paranoid misgivings about privacy and whatnot, until I read a book that put it all in perspective. It’s called Bottoms up and the Devil Laughed: A journey through The Deep State. The whole book is good, and relevant to this story, but one specific line blew my mind, here goes:

Who are you? You are data about data.

You are a web of social relationships.

You are a map of connections.

This morning in the car line at the Montessori school you called a pediatric dermatologist and spoke for two minutes, the time it takes to make an appointment.

From Target, you called a ski instructor and spoke for seventy-two minutes, which is eight minutes longer than yesterday and twenty-three minutes longer than the day before that, which suggests an escalating interest in someone not your spouse.

The ski instructor and you both receive emails from the Montessori school, which suggests that this is how you met.

Both you and the dermatologist receive frequent texts from the Democratic Party.

Both you and your spouse receive emails from the Audubon Society; you used to open these emails, but now only your spouse opens them.

It is intuitive to think that it is the content of our communication that matters, the words of our emails, the turns of phrase with which we text. We want to believe we exist in what we choose to say, but this overstates our autonomy; we are at least as realized in our connections to other people. “A man,” wrote sociologist Charles Cooley in 1901, “may be regarded as the point of intersection of an indefinite number of circles.”

To make themselves real, children invent imaginary friends.

It’s too late, of course; you are already known, though the you that is known is not the you that you are.

Willingly you have surrendered many bits of information that, taken together, form a sclerotic social identity with a strange relation to the real.

Surveillance finds truths, and surveillance serves the creation of elaborate untruths.

In our time we have cast disappearance as suspect —“ghosted,” we say, as if it’s a bad thing—while we celebrate the keeping of a kind of terrible track: I have the receipts.

A paper receipt might get trashed or lost or misfiled, out of reach of digital discovery. But it is our fate to live in the age of the indelible. We all have to have the receipts, receipts for everything, receipts for texts and one-line emails and Facebook messages, an ageless record of the time I made a bad joke in a group thread and my friends twice-tapped haha! so as not to leave me hanging. To study surveillance is to learn, over and over, that we cannot escape ourselves.

At the NSA they have long known that you can make precise predictions simply by knowing the location of people, who they are calling, and for how long. From this “metadata” one builds a picture, makes predictions; one concludes that the Montessori parent will not go on the birding trip with the spouse, but will abscond with the ski instructor.

From this metadata, the intelligence community decides whom to kill.

That last line is, damn, so you see how an entire narrative can be built with your data. And the details can be whatever they like them to be.

Palantir

Palantir was created in 2003, founded by Peter Thiel, originally created to aid the government in the War on Terror, just like the PATRIOT Act.

This section is for businesses but just imagine our information being inserted into this thing.

They have another section called “GOTHAM,” think about that, for fixing crime riddled places like Gotham from Batman.

It has been used for “Pre-Crime Predictions”, consider that, using it to predict whether you were going to commit crimes or not based on your movements.

It will be used to create vaccines that are personalized to you, can’t imagine how that would go wrong.

From the guy who said to Joe Rogan, way before Kash Patel, that he couldn’t see Jeffrey Epstein killing himself, Peter Thiel, and CEO Alex Karp, who I’m sure was a Batman villain in their origin form, this program is going to be a catch-all for all the things our government doesn’t do well, it’s going to handle everything from the IRS to pharmaceutical's, ladies if you're worried about “keeping the government out of your uterus” wait until they’re being injected into your skin.

Just like the PATRIOT Act this will started as counterterrorism and is now being turned towards the people.

Just listen to what the MAGA sycophants have to say about it:

Even better, here’s Laura Loomer on Palantir two years ago

Here she is last week:

More sycophants:

Yes Rabbi, I’m sure.

Palantir is a violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution, which was ratified in 1791.

Later the Supreme Court interpreted this as being our “right to privacy.” Griswold v Connecticut (1965) and Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925).

In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home. Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:

"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Freedom Manifesto

In a YouTube documentary on the Palantir Vision YouTube channel the very first line of the documentary is:

American company Palantir is providing intelligence to Ukraine to repel the Russian invasion. With the help of artificial intelligence Palantir enables Ukraine to have a better understanding of the battlefield, and gives it the exact location of Russian tanks, planes, and ships, in real time, so that the Ukrainian Army can efficiently tackle the Russian threat on its soil.

That’s what we are unleashing on the American people. This actually is a constitutional crisis. The constitution does not give the government authority to use software like this against their own people! Maybe in Ukraine, but this ain’t Ukraine!

Holy shit, Palantir helped to uncover the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme by Bernie Madoff!

It turns out, the largest Ponzi scheme conviction in history was at least in part the result of Palantir's mysterious data analysis software, according to leaked documents, reported yesterday by TechCrunch. But it wasn't just Bernie Madoff who fell as a result of Palantir's frighteningly powerful tool set.

"It's the combination of every analytical tool you could ever dream of," said Samuel Reading, a former Marine who works as a U.S. military contractor, according to the documents. "You will know every single bad guy in your area."

I wonder how it does with the “bad guys” in the government?

Listen to this, the reporting is more about Palantir than Bernie Madoff:

Since its founding in 2004, Palantir has managed to grow into a billion dollar company while being very surreptitious about what it does exactly. Conjecture abounds. The vague facts dredged up by reporters confirm that Palantir has created a data mining system used extensively by law enforcement agencies and security companies to connect the dots between known criminals.

Here’s more of the reporting from TechCrunch:

In short, the description above is in part correct. But, thanks to this leaked information, we now know far more about the secretive company.

Palantir’s data analysis solution targets three industries: government, the finance sector and legal research. Each of these industries must wrestle with massive sets of data. To do this, Palantir’s toolsets are aimed at massive data caches, allowing litigators and the police to make connections otherwise invisible. For example, a firm hired by the Securities Investment Protection Corporation used Palantir’s software to sort through the mountains of data, over 40 years of records, to convict Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff (of all things).

Palantir’s software sits on top of existing data sets and provides users with what seems like a revolutionary interface. Users do not have to use SQL queries or employ engineers to write strings in order to search petabytes of data. Instead, natural language is used to query data and results are returned in real-time.

Clients include the Los Angeles Police Department which used Palantir to parse and connect 160 data sets: Everyone from detectives to transit cops to homeland security officials uses Palantir at the LAPD. According to the document, Palantir provides a timeline of events and has helped the massive police department sort its records.

The leaked report quotes Sergeant Peter Jackson of the LAPD stating: “Detectives love the type of information it [Palantir] provides. They can now do things that we could not do before. They can now exactly see great information and the links between events and people. It’s brought great success to LAPD. It supports the cops on the streets and the officers doing the investigations. It is a great tool. They are becoming more efficient and more effective cops. Palantir is allowing them to better serve the public.”

Palantir explains that it is a toolset for use in human analysis on its website. However, we now understand that the service is a smarter way of displaying data for analysis by humans. It is capable of building comprehensive models of activity to detect suspicious anomalies and is even able to provide immunity to fraud thanks to strategies the founders learned while still at PayPal.

Palantir’s anti-fraud system uses algorithms to detect and isolate patterns designated by analysts. This approach was inspired by combating adaptive threats at PayPal, the leaked document states. Four out of the five people on the Palantir management team worked at PayPal. Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel was also a PayPal co-founder.

The document confirms that Palantir is employed by multiple US Government agencies. One of the company’s first contracts was with the Joint IED Defeat Organization in 2006. From 2007-2009 Palantir’s work in Washington expanded from eight pilots to more than 50 programs.

As of 2013, Palantir was used by at least 12 groups within the US Government including the CIA, DHS, NSA, FBI, the CDC, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, Special Operations Command, West Point, the Joint IED-defeat organization and Allies, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services were planning on pilot testing the use of Palantir in 2013 to investigate tips received through a hotline. A second test was run by the same organization to identify potentially fraudulent medical providers in the Southern region of the US.

So, this was already being used by the government, now they are turning it against the people to try and track down who is illegal and who isn’t. This sounds like a bad omen.

Like, in centuries they’ll ask, “America was doing great, they were on a rise and then the country nuked itself, how did that happen?!”

“I don’t know. I can’t imagine what went wrong?”

Listen to this:

To conduct what became known as Operation Fallen Hero, investigators turned to a little-known Silicon Valley software company called Palantir Technologies. Palantir’s expertise is in finding connections among people, places, and events in large repositories of electronic data. Federal agents had amassed a trove of reporting on the drug cartels, their members, their funding mechanisms and smuggling routes. They had dossiers, reports from informants, surveillance images, intercepted electronic communications, footage from drone aircraft. But investigators lacked a way to assemble and share all that intelligence with one another and to quickly find leads buried in mountains of information.

This all sounds very great but, this is the type of software used to triangulate targets in the Drone Wars during the Obama Administration, of which only 8 out of 10 deaths were the actual targets, that’s a real number by the way.

By the way, the reporting above was from 2012 and 2013, why are we just hearing about this now? There’s a reason we weren’t told anything about this software until recently, and I’m sure it's not because they were worried about our privacy.

One last thing, if you’re not convinced your data can be used against you, even if you’re totally innocent, there is a second part to that story from the beginning:

If you remember, according to the data, that lady is having an affair with her ski instructor whom she met at the Montessori school, but it’s the content of our data that actually matters…

Who are you? You are a web of social relationships. You are data about data.

It’s true that you called the ski instructor from Target and spoke for seventy-two minutes, which is eight minutes longer than yesterday and twenty-three minutes longer than the day before that, which suggests an escalating interest in someone other than your spouse.

It is true that you were supposed to go on a birding trip with your spouse, who still opens the emails to the Audubon Society even though you don’t open yours, and that you canceled and let the plane tickets go unused.

But it’s also true, to people who know you, that the ski instructor is your best friend, and has recently slipped back into an old addiction.

It is also true, to people who know you, that the trip was canceled because your child has begun having troubles at school.

You are a web of social relationships. Many, many stories can be spun from that web. “We kill people based on metadata,” a CIA director once said, which is true, and they are often the wrong people.

There must be some way to put the mustard back into the bottle, because this looks like we're staring down the barrel of Minority Report and 1984 crossed into one great Black Mirror episode.

Was Donald Trump where we went wrong or is this the inevitability of a civilization on the rise of technological supremacy? And your choice is buckle up and grab the “Oh shit” bar or fly out the window.

I wish I had the answer.

Thank you for reading!

Editor-in-Chief

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Amendment One, The Constitution of the United States, Ratified on December 15, 1791.

Can anyone blame Rosa Parks for the day she refused to move to the back of the bus? Could you blame her for the ensuing bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama? It was as justifiable as protests and demonstrations come.

From History.com:

On February 12, 1968, 1,300 Black sanitation workers in Memphis began a strike to demand better working conditions and higher pay. Their stand marked an early fight for financial justice for workers of color as part of the civil rights movement. The strike also drew Martin Luther King Jr. and fatefully became the setting for his “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech and his assassination.

Hauling trash, sometimes in the pouring rain, was a taxing and dirty job. Yet the city of Memphis expected garbage collectors to work long hours for meager wages and without overtime pay. Their compensation, 65 cents per hour, was so low that many were eligible for welfare and food stamps.

The strikes were sparked after a couple weeks earlier two men, Echol Cole and Robert Walker, had taken shelter from the rain in the back of a trash truck, when the truck malfunctioned and crushed the men to death. The people were outraged, they had been lobbying the city for more up-to-date equipment for years.

Then the city refused to provide compensation to the families of the deceased workers. The worker's walked off the job in disgust.

From the King Institute at Stanford:

The night before his assassination in April 1968, Martin Luther King told a group of striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee: “We’ve got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point in Memphis. We’ve got to see it through” (King, “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop,” 217). King believed the struggle in Memphis exposed the need for economic equality and social justice that he hoped his Poor People’s Campaign would highlight nationally.

If it hadn’t been for this, we might still be working 80+ hours a week at regular pay.

The Vietnam war demonstrations made perfect sense. They protested the invasion of a country we’d had no premise to invade. The Gulf of Tonkin attack for which we invaded hadn’t actually happened. It was fear of a culture we didn’t understand. For a thesis we’d had no proof of.

In the name of the people, they bombed villages. Massacred woman and children, and traumatized, not only the Vietnamese people, but the American soldiers who were led to believe they were carrying out a noble mission, only to find they were fleecing a country of their resources and enriching a military industrial-complex hungry for death.

Without this resistance they might’ve continued the war. The change in public sentiment at home, although late, led Nixon to start the withdrawal from Vietnam in 1969. All troops, however, wouldn’t be withdrawn until 1973, and Cambodia had been blown to bits.

Subscribe now

Share The Freedom Manifesto

Share

The riots of 1992, you could find plenty of justification. The video of Rodney King being beaten by the LAPD had been shared far and wide. Way before social media. News station to news station aired the beating of King. A lucky catch before the age cell phone cameras.

There was an atmosphere of hate and discrimination between the LAPD and the black community. There’s been many movies, documentaries, books, depicting these events. An affluent Asian store owner shot and killed a young girl, named Latasha Harlins, because she was suspected of shoplifting.

Off the back of the Iran/Contra Affair it was uncovered that the CIA had been moving cocaine into the black community as a means to fund regime change in Guatemala without Congressional oversight.

The Asian storeowner was given probation. Rodney King’s attackers were let off. The CIA lied, and the black community, decimated by mass incarceration and the crack epidemic were told to “Just say No!"

What followed was the biggest protest California had seen since Watts was set fire in 1965.

By the way, the Watts Uprising, as it was coined, also made sense. They repealed the Rumford Fair Housing Act which stopped landlords and property owners from being able to refuse to rent, lease, or sell property to “colored people” as they referred to them. Based solely on this characteristic.

In California, housing segregation was rampant as a result of decades of racially discriminatory housing policies explicitly aimed at keeping people of color confined to urban ghettos and out of the expanding suburbs.

This brought about the act by the only black legislator in California. When it was repealed, all hell broke loose.

The “Battle of Seattle” 1999 made sense. They opposed the globalization created by NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Act, which turned out to be the most devastating piece of legislation and turned the working class to the unemployed class and turned places like Detroit and Gary, Indiana into a ghetto. Our jobs were shipped overseas, and we’re still trying to get them back.

The series of protests that became the Battle of Seattle surrounded the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999, which convened at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle. The demonstrations were planned months in advance.

See, NAFTA and the WTO allowed big companies to ship their manufacturing overseas where they could get away with paying workers pennies on the dollar.

It’s the reason cell phones are made in enemy countries, and not a single chip manufacturer exists in America.

The authorities knew it was coming and came out in full force against the protestors. According to reporting “Delta Force,” the U.S. Army’s tier-one Special Operations force, was dispensed against the protestors.

Curfews were assigned and "no-protest zones" were established where anti-WTO buttons were not allowed to be worn.

Agents Provocateurs were sent into the crowds to invoke violence to give the police the ok to shut down the demonstrations by force.

On February 15th, 2003, the largest protest in history, according to Guinness, took place internationally to oppose the invasion of Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Our troops were being sent to invade a regime who were not our enemies, to avenge an attack someone else had committed, and remove weapons that did not exist.

The protestors and demonstrators were right. History has vindicated them, every one of them.

Occupy Wall Street made sense. They protested the Wall Street bailouts given by the Obama administration while American homeowners were thrown out on their ass.

2020 made sense. Every one of us knew a George Floyd, had a friend, loved one, or could see a scenario where we could’ve been in that position personally.

Or Breonna Taylor, who had an ex-boyfriend who turned out to be bad news and after she’d already dumped his ass, was shot to death by the police for something that he had done.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Freedom Manifesto

January 6th, you can say what you want but those people believed their country was being taken away from them. Everything they were told by partisan actors on the right seemed to be confirmed by partisan actors on the left.

At the same time that the public was radicalized by the obvious lies from the expert-class, public health officials, doctors, scientists, and the news media, when those same people then said to “trust us” about the election too, a majority percentage said “fuck that! You just told me that Covid believes Black Lives Matter. Now you’re telling me the election was free and fair. I’m listening to the other guy that you liars told me not to trust.”

I came out of that period a hardened revolutionary that now fact checked the local weather man.

I might’ve been one of those indicted if I’d been there on January 6th, 2021.

The campus protests currently taking place make perfect sense to me. For almost two years now, the images of children being slaughtered under the rubble in Gaza, from bombs that we paid for with our blood, sweat, and tears.

Being told that if we oppose that we are the same thing as Adolf Hitler. That praying for protection for the “children of Gaza and Israel” means that you are a supporter of terrorism, or opposing the support of the genocide of a people with your tax dollars makes you “antisemitic filth.”

Protesting that makes sense, to me.

So, what the fuck is happening in LA? Is this… real?

I mean, are these protests organic?

Or are they organized by and the Brookings Institute?

How To Subvert Subversion with Yuri Bezmenov

How To Defend Democracy with Color Revolutions

Comrades: Norm Eisen is orchestrating color revolutions in plain sight. In January, he published "Democracy Playbook 2025: 7 Pillars to Defend Democracy” for the Brookings Institute. You can judge this book by its cover - in this case, democracy means mob rule by masked red guards. The full report can be found…

Read more

a year ago · 162 likes · 19 comments · Yuri Bezmenov

First off, I had no clue there was ICE protests happening until I seen a picture of what I thought was a pro-Palestine protestor on top of a burning cop car with a Palestinian flag flying. I thought, oh damn! Good pic, but I don’t know if that’s good for the Palestinians. Burning cop cars?! I think they’re getting enough bad press.

Then I started seeing all the videos out of LA, kicked myself directly in the teeth for mistaking a Mexican flag for a Palestinian flag.

Right after this year’s inauguration, I don’t who I was following, but I was getting notifications from Threads and a couple people I was following were posting warnings of locations of upcoming ICE raids.

One of the posts kinda blew my mind, it showed such irresponsible disregard for reality, it said, “ICE raids in” blah blah blah “DO NOT COMPLY! THEY HAVE NO LEGAL PRESIDENCE. RESIST AT ALL COSTS!”

I couldn’t believe what I was reading. Someone is calling for these people to resist Federal agents. I’ve been arrested many times, what I have learned is those brave dumb souls never win in the end.

So, I commented “Please DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS CRAZY PERSON! Always comply with the person holding the gun. They can shoot you dead and walk away unscathed. Ignore this.”

So, these riots have been bubbling right beneath the surface since Inauguration Day.

It seems they are now breaking out in major cities across the country.

What I’m hearing from reporting is Stephen Miller said, he wants the Federal agents to stop targeting only criminals and start raiding workplaces that are known to hire illegal immigrants, Home Depot, 7/11 etc. leading to a raid of a Home Depot in Los Angeles sparking the unrest in LA that has now spread to Austin, Dallas, Denver, Philidelphia, Seattle, Santa Ana, CA, Boston, Washington D.C, New York City, and Chicago.

Here’s Forbes on what’s happening:

Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, referred to the demonstrations as an “insurrection,” and said they are “all the proof you need that mass migration unravels societies,” while highlighting footage of protesters waving Mexican flags in posts on X, painting a dark narrative that the U.S. is being taken over by undocumented migrants.

He attacked lawmakers in so-called sanctuary cities, accusing “the government of the state of California” of having “aided, abetted and conspired to facilitate the invasion of the United States,” writing “we will take back America.”

The arrests coincide with a push from Miller for ICE to dramatically increase arrests and use aggressive tactics, such as workplace raids like the one conducted at a Westlake Home Depot over the weekend that led to the protests in Los Angeles, according to multiple reports about Miller’s directives.

Miller recently set a new “minimum” arrest figure for ICE of 3,000 per day, double the quota set in January, and threatened to fire ICE field office leaders with the least amount of arrests, NBC News reported, citing unnamed sources who participated in a meeting with Miller last month.

In the meeting, Miller urged officials to broaden arrest targets to include noncriminal migrants, according to NBC, even as the Trump administration has defended its mass deportation push by claiming it’s targeting those accused of serious crimes or gang affiliation.

Miller pushed ICE officials to conduct broad sweeps at workplaces like Home Depot, 7-Eleven and others that employ day laborers, and do essentially whatever they need to make more arrests, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the meeting,

I’ve heard reports of Marines being called in and the National Guard. This is worrisome. If you are not worried about the military being deployed on citizens, allow me to include one more anecdote from the past.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Freedom Manifesto

The Kent State Massacre

On May 4, 1970, during a demonstration against the Vietnam War, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on unarmed Kent State University students, killing four and injuring nine. The shootings occurred in the context of a politically charged period, following President Nixon's announcement that the US would invade Cambodia. The day before the shootings, National Guard troops were called to the campus to quell riots.

Here’s the thing and the way I see all of this,

The Federal Government, every arm of it, is oppressive by its nature.

The more efficient the government works the more oppressive it is.

The videos I am seeing coming out of these protests are “No Holds Barred” from the police.

That’s without the military present. Maybe they’ve gotten more aggressive, maybe it’s because they don’t see these people as citizens but the riot police breaking up these protests are coming in a lot more aggressive than usual.

Maybe it’s because they aren’t the ones being protested this time. Maybe that caused them to show a lot more restraint than we realized, but these motherfuckers aren’t playing no games.

I’m praying everyone out there stays as safe as possible and that these police find some compassion in their hearts.

Anyone stuck in one of these third world countries, who’ve been fed the bullshit line about “America, land of the free” you’d wanna come here too.

Imagine you didn’t know anything else, you heard how free and amazing America was, you get here and you’re like, “Yea, it’s just like they told me! I got a job at Home Depot, first day!”

Then the very next day the place gets raided by ICE.

The day after that you get shot by rubber bullets.

All I know is America is really ruining their propaganda about how dreamy this place is.

Thank you for reading.

Editor-in-Chief

I was afraid my post was violating some kind of TOS so if y’all get this apparently I am. If not I guess I’ll keep waiting for the network to get better. I’ve tried using a PC, Apple device, and Android, on mobile hotspot, Wi-Fi, and mobile data, at home, at work, and at the park, so it’s NOT my connection, lmfao.

If y’all get this I hope you’re having a magnificent hump-day and may the rest of your week be the brightest.

Thank you for reading!

I didn’t want to say anything else about this. I fast-forwarded past his interview on Real Time, and I definitely wasn’t going to read whatever else he had to say in the New York Post but tuning in to Dave Smith talk about it on his podcast, sure, I’ll do that.

Dave Smith was going over Douglas’ latest “Op-Ed” in the New York Post that seems to be, if nothing else, calling for censorship. That’s what it means when anyone else calls for “Standards.” That’s surely all Rachel Maddow and Jen Psaki was asking for right? But when I got to the claims he made, that we’d like to see some “standards” for. I became so infuriated, I couldn’t stop myself. Now, here we are.

The New York Post’s Steele Dossier Moment

This Op-Ed/article/whatever is the most flawed piece of disinformation in journalism since the “Horse Paste” bit put out by CNN and the lot during Covid.

Maybe worse, this is the New York Post’s Steele Dossier moment. I think I might be madder at the New York Post for publishing these easily verifiable lies. I don’t know if it’s because it falls under the purview “Opinion” that they would just be a-okay with publishing things that a Google search and a Ctrl+f (find on page) could verify for you, but I’m at least a bit loathsome of Douglas Murray’s abuse of credibility he’s gained by clinging onto people, institutions, and the culture war shit.

I mean, I’ve been reading his books since the Madness of Crowds, thinking this guy had really put in the work, but now I see it oh so clear. He’s a first-class liar that counts on his identity as a gay conservative Brit and the institutions he clings onto to give him credibility. How could they let him get this so wrong? I would never think it was okay to publish something on this Substack that I didn’t not only believe to be true but verify to make sure it’s true.

Share The Freedom Manifesto

Share

Subscribe now

I remember the first time I heard mention of him, it was from Joe Rogan, and Joe was referring to the — extraordinarily fitting to our times — claim that when civilizations are on their last leg they start to experiment with things like gender and what-not, things that in a normal world would seem like madness, things that, as of late, have been happening here in the West.

Please someone, if you know what book, article, archive, this claim came from message me or comment because now that I know Douglas Murray is a habitual liar I must know who said that shit? And did he make it up? Because it’s his most widely cited claim.

So, what sent me on my first Google of Mr. Murray wasn’t simply that claim. It was what followed that claim I’m sure which was — something to the effect of — “Douglas is an interesting case being that he is a gay man who, because of his identity, can say the things that they would get anyone else cancelled.” I thought, “Oh, how exotic. I must hear this guy talk.”

I’ve always been one to find myself into the less orthodoxy. I preferred “Little Wing” to “Purple Haze”. Ralph Nader to John Kerry, but who wouldn’t. “Soul to Squeeze” over “Give it Away.” “One in a Million” over “Patience.” “…And Justice for All” over “The Black Album”. “Brain Damage” over “My Name is.” You get it, right?

I have an immediate appeal to the more contrarian view and sometimes move more towards the mainstream and sometimes further away.

I’m feeling maybe that has become an out-of-control train in the case of Douglas Murray. I recently, after he appeared on Lex Fridman’s podcast and was bragging about his “Mr. President, this is THE dictator” article in the NY Post, checked out the article, and thought immediately that it wasn’t what I’d consider a well-written piece, and it didn’t say anything surprising. It was not at all what I’d expected to find from Douglas. In fact, Douglas Murray was writing like a glorified corporate media pundit, so I thought, hey “maybe it’s a one off.”

But, no. This “Op-Ed” he just put out for the NY Post has zero “-Ed” and not that much “Op-.”

The following passage comes to mind from ’s Hate Inc., and I cannot believe it is now describing Douglas Murray.

Douglas’ “Averageness” is so average you think its exotic!

So, I wonder, is it his identity as a gay conservative with a know-it-all accent that gives him the ability to lie to everyone in this publication, and in his books, and on the news? The New York Post is the very same publication, who we all defended when their “Hunter Biden Laptop” story was broke four years ago. How can they allow themselves to be co-opted by such easily verifiable bullshit?!

What bullshit? I thought you’d never ask.

The Claims

The headline, of which is just the best. Talk about drinking your own Kool-Aid. “There has to be a standard.” Agreed! Let’s talk about it:

Let’s talk about this line: “Claiming some Jewish ancestry, he has spent the 18 months since Oct. 7, 2023, being very unfunny indeed.”

This is allowed, being purely opinion, but I should say, “Claiming some Jewish Ancestry” is pretty funny for him to say, in a fucked-up way. Dave Smith’s grandfather died in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany, so yea, he “claims” some Jewish ancestry.

My real issues come in when he, by means of “standards” can’t even be bothered to figure out who said what? You can tell this guy heard one story and never went back to see if he heard it right, or he’s remembering it clearly. Not a second draft in his life!

Alright: First claim, on Dave Smith:

Specifically, he has decided to spend his time going around the podcast world sounding off about Israel.

In the process, he largely cites people like him — people who have many views but no obvious expertise.

Dave Smith has been doing a show called Part of the Problem since February 2016. His first episode was called “Venezuela 1984.” He found his calling in this during the Ron Paul debate when he fell in love with Ron Paul’s anti-war stance. Geopolitics has been his animating issue since the beginning. Subscribe at PartoftheProblem.com if you’d like to hear more.

Dave literally never refers to other podcasters as his basis for any of the claims he makes. He reads books, reads reports, the same shit we all do to find out truth.

If you can get his first episode, “Venezuela 1984”, he says at 5min:45secs in “My three main issues in this order are: Foreign policy, the Prison industrial complex (war on drugs, mass policing, etc.), and financial corruption.”

If you’d like to know why he’s a critic of Israel, maybe read this report, I found out about it from him, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm this was a letter to Netanyahu in the 90’s telling him, instead of making peace with the Palestinians hold off on the “Land for Peace Process”, instead we’re going to overthrow Israel’s enemies in the Middle East, and peace with Palestinians can be pushed to the back burner forever. The guys who wrote that letter became part of George W. Bush’s cabinet, and Netanyahu testified in Congress as a “Regional Expert” in 2002, claiming that if Iran and Iraq are overthrown “Democracy would sweep the region.” Turns out he was wrong.

Or read, “Rise and Kill First: History of Mossad’s Targeted Killings” a recommendation of , and Dave Smith. These people read history books by actual experts. It’s so stupid. Next claim:

One of Cooper’s many ahistorical claims is that Winston Churchill was the chief villain of World War II.

On these and many other occasions, Cooper has simply lied about history.

When invited to debate the world’s foremost living expert on Churchill last year, he declined, saying that he didn’t know enough to go against such a figure.

One of his many. I’d like to hear what the rest of them are, but no one addresses anything but this one claim that isn’t what he said at all! Just watch the following clip: This is everything has said about Winston Churchill.

There’s a bright line in opinions of . On one side of the line is those who have heard his work, on the other side is those who haven’t heard his work. Not one person who has listened to his work has a negative opinion of him. You just can’t, so I implore you, check out his work. It’s free, here , click there and listen to any of it and tell me your opinion is still the same. Or check out the first ten minutes of this:

Also, he was offered to debate Andrew Roberts on World War Two, but he declined. He said, “I don’t do many podcasts, I’m not good at talking off the cuff. I’m a bookworm. I wouldn’t want to debate Andrew Roberts; I’m a fan of Andrew Roberts. I’ve been reading Andrew Roberts books for years. And I am no historian of World War Two. I do a history podcast where I read books and write long scripts and read those scripts.”

Subscribe now

Share The Freedom Manifesto

Share

Next claim: Here’s a good one!

Another such figure from the world of comedy who is changing his shape to fit the time is Rogan guest Ian Carroll.

This is someone who, when he last went on Rogan’s podcast, very carefully tried to minimize the evil of Adolf Hitler.

Outrageously and completely falsely, Carroll claimed that in the 1930s, Hitler had kept his antisemitism down.

A provably false claim that Rogan did nothing to counter.

“Another such figure from the ‘World of Comedy’. I’m sure of it now. Douglas has had a concussion. Or a secret membership to “The Fight Club” causing him CTE.

Ian Carroll has never, and I mean not one single time been on any stage as a comedian of any kind and has never claimed to. What is this idiocrasy. “Another?” Is he saying was a comedian too?

Joe Rogan and Dave Smith got their start as comedians, literally nobody else!

And the word “Hitler” was only spoken during the JRE episode with Ian Carroll one time, in the whole three hours, only uttered one time.

Once again, if you’re going to call for “standards” Douglas maybe you could have some yourself.

What was said is that “early on in Hitler’s rise, to avoid causing outrage from the regular German people, not sympathetic to the National Socialists (Nazi’s), Hitler was downplaying his antisemitism on the global stage. His point was not all German people were all in for Hitler, there were still some good German people.

The claim you’re making wasn’t made by Ian Carroll, you fool, it was made by and many mainstream Historians who wrote some of the most prominent histories on World War Two, here, I’ll give you five, since I already have this point cued up from my debate breakdown:

From page 102 of Ian Kershaw's "Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution," where the author remarks about Hiter's propensity to temper his violent antisemitism in the early 1930s, a timeframe Murray denies him doing so:

Courtesy of Author and Historian, Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons on X.

Sorry, Doug, I’m just looking for standards. You shouldn’t accuse someone of hiding behind something, that no one, including them, has ever said they were.

You shouldn’t attribute things to someone that they literally never said.

And if you are going to accuse someone of peddling in falsehoods, you should probably make damn sure it’s false.

Next Claim: Oh, Shit. Now Dougie Bites the Hand That Feeds Him?

Two weeks ago, Rogan had his mate Dave Smith on yet again for a long podcast.

But for my return to the show, the deal was that I could come on only if Dave Smith was — once again — in the studio.

As if Joe didn’t want to be unaccompanied.

Or that Joe thought it was I — of all his guests — who must be challenged.

I like a debate as much as the next Scotsman.

But what resulted was more than a debate.

It seems to have led to some kind of podcast-world meltdown.

The first reason was that from the outset, I challenged Joe on his choice of guests and why he had been giving a platform to only one side of a debate —

and a very conspiratorial one at that.

He and Smith were immediately defensive.

Oh, isn’t this fun. Accusing Joe of being afraid that Dougie might challenge him. Let me first say that Joe is the only reason that many millions of us even know who you are.

Let me also say, there have been several pro-Israel, pro-Ukraine people on the Joe Rogan Experience, every single one of them were more knowledgeable on the subject than you, Douglas Murray.

Gad Saad grew up in Lebanon during the wars. Are you saying you’re more knowledgeable than him? Mike Baker was part of the CIA during the war on Terror, are you more knowledgeable than him? I don’t even mean that to be ad hominem, read his writing. He’s retelling the same corporate media positions just with his own spin to it. Not even very much spin either, but you’re the guy Joe is afraid of taking on, yea, sure. “Mr. President, Vladimir Putin is THE dictator!”

Coleman Hughes is Coleman Hughes, you’re not more knowledgeable than him!

The idea that Joe was afraid to talk to you without Dave Smith present, sounds like you’re trying to hide behind being a comedian too. It’s the funniest bit I’ve heard this year, but it is also not true.

We (the listeners) even knew about this debate coming up, you didn’t get blindsided, Dave Smith announced on his show over a month ago that he had a big debate coming up, at first, he said it was in talks, and then he said it was confirmed. If you got blindsided it wouldn’t have been something that had to be “confirmed.”

“They were immediately defensive.”

Yea, sure. My girlfriend watched this before I did, she had zero preconceived notions, she said, “Who was that British prick that came on with Dave Smith?” She said, “They dismantled his bullshit like brilliant gentleman.” Mind you, she doesn’t follow politics, just listened to this episode for something to pass the time at work. They weren't on the defense, you were, and what's great about the internet is that it never dies. Anyone who ever wants to know how that went can go to YouTube and roll it back.

Subscribe now

Share The Freedom Manifesto

Share

Last Claim: You Haven’t Been There

His last paragraph was on this argument. He really wanted this to be more of an own than it was. I would absolutely love to visit these places I write about, I’d love to know how the people on the ground feel, maybe one day that will be in my budget, but that will never change the history of a conflict, the history of a region. And it does not mean that I can’t educate myself on what is going on and what has gone on and give my positions. It must be nice to be propped up by institutions that pay you to travel around and do mediocre work. I think about , breaking the biggest stories in the world for the New Yorker, now that places like that, hire hacks like this, it leaves no room for the Hersh’s of the world, what the fuck happened?

In order to be knowledgeable about these things you don’t have to — as Joe said, “go and touch the ground” — you simply have to be diligent, read every perspective you can from all sides and stay curious. I will refer to your position before your recent bout with Dementia:

There are people who've written about the Holocaust who didn't experience the Holocaust and have written about it better than people who did.

My Final Words on This Story

So, here’s a nail for Mr. Murray’s coffin.

Dishonesty obviously comes easily with this one, everyone knows that now. The last person who would’ve gone to bat for him no matter what, he’s now attempting to get deplatformed.

Shouting him down like the censorious college student wokesters that made him famous. Two conflicts later and his neoconservative roots have returned. The sick, sadistic, homoerotic affection for war have been dragged out of hiding and into the mainstream. Finally, I must ask, editors of the New York Post, what are you going to do? Are you going to allow this fool to use the pages of the oldest journalistic publication in America to call for the censorship of one of your biggest allies in Joe Rogan when the entire system was crashing down upon your publication in 2020? To uproot the first amendment that’s been so precious to us here in America? Will you allow some Brit that doesn’t believe in these God given rights himself to cloud your judgement?! Come now. Excise this tumor. Douglas Murray should be in the funny pages, not because he’s actually funny, but because he’s using the old “Comedian-Historian” switcheroo routine, like his best buds Bill Maher and . And don’t forget .

Thank you for reading!

Editor-in-Chief

I seen the following post when I popped open X, and couldn’t resist the click:

Now, that’s fucked up, but I couldn’t help but go a little further with it. Grok asked the question, “Why target Jews first?” And I thought, Right! Good question, and before I could ask him Grok decided he might take it upon himself and let me know what Mr. Brotherhood had in mind. Grok:

The X post’s prioritization of Jews for deportation aligns with a historical pattern of antisemitism, which has seen a resurgence in 2025, as noted in recent events.

An executive order signed by President Trump on January 30, 2025, targets antisemitism on U.S. college campuses, specifically threatening to deport foreign students labeled as "Hamas sympathizers" or "pro-jihadist" protesters, per NPR.

The order reflects a broader crackdown on perceived antisemitic activities, citing an "unprecedented wave of vile anti-Semitic discrimination, vandalism, and violence" in the U.S.

Historically, antisemitism has roots in 19th-century "scientific racism," which fueled Nazi ideology and the Holocaust, where Jews were primary targets, according to Britannica.

During World War II, U.S. immigration policies limited Jewish refugees despite Nazi persecution, with 82% of Americans opposing their entry in 1938, as detailed by Teach Democracy.

The post’s focus on Jews may also echo far-right narratives that falsely portray Jewish communities as threats to national identity, a trope seen in historical scapegoating during economic or social crises.

Recent news, like the March 10, 2025, AP report of Trump warning of arrests of Palestinian activists at Columbia University, indicates a political climate where targeting specific groups, including Jews, gains traction among certain factions.

With the reminder of Trump’s contemporary stances on protest and free speech, it triggered me to ask:

What happened to the Skokie principle of free speech?

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Freedom Manifesto

I kinda wanted to see if this Grok fella knew his stuff.

The Skokie principle of free speech, as established through the 1977-1978 legal battle involving the National Socialist Party of America (a Nazi group) and the village of Skokie, Illinois, is a cornerstone of First Amendment law in the United States. It affirms that even deeply offensive or hateful speech is protected under the Constitution, barring specific exceptions like incitement to imminent lawless action or true threats. The principle emerged from the case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Nazi group's right to demonstrate in Skokie, a village with a significant Jewish population, including Holocaust survivors. The ACLU’s defense of the Nazis’ free speech rights, despite public backlash, underscored the idea that freedom of speech must be universal, regardless of the message’s content or the speaker’s identity. This is detailed in the web results you provided, which highlight the case as a “landmark example of the vitality of the First Amendment” and the ACLU’s commitment to the principle that “freedom of speech is a universal right no matter how offensive the message or the speaker.”

Now, let’s address what’s happened to this principle in the context of the X post and the broader environment in 2025. The X post by @DiggingInTheDi1, which lists groups for “deportation priority” starting with Jews and includes other racial, ethnic, and religious groups, is a clear example of hate speech. Under the Skokie principle, this post would likely be protected speech in the U.S., as it expresses a viewpoint—however repugnant—without directly inciting imminent lawless action or constituting a true threat. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, absent those narrow exceptions, is protected, as seen in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011). The Skokie case itself dealt with a prior restraint issue—Skokie’s attempt to block the Nazi demonstration before it happened—which the Court struck down, emphasizing that the government cannot suppress speech preemptively based on its content.

However, the replies to the X post and the broader discourse it represents suggest a growing tension around the Skokie principle in 2025. Several factors indicate that this principle, while still legally intact, faces challenges in practice and public perception:

---

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Freedom Manifesto

Rising Political and Social Pressure to Censor Hate Speech: The X post and its replies, which amplify antisemitic, racist, and xenophobic rhetoric, reflect a climate where such views are increasingly vocal on platforms like X. At the same time, there’s growing pressure to limit hate speech, especially as it targets marginalized groups. For example, the executive order signed by President Trump on January 30, 2025 (as mentioned in the NPR report from your previous query), targets antisemitic activities on college campuses, threatening deportation of foreign students labeled as “Hamas sympathizers” or “pro-jihadist.” While this order focuses on specific actions rather than speech, it signals a political willingness to blur the lines between protected expression and punishable conduct, potentially chilling free speech. This mirrors historical efforts, like those in Skokie, to suppress speech deemed offensive, which the courts rejected.

1. Public and Platform Responses: In 2025, social media platforms like X face intense scrutiny over their handling of hate speech. The Skokie principle applies to government action, not private entities, so X could theoretically remove the post under its terms of service without violating the First Amendment. However, X’s current leadership, under Elon Musk, has leaned heavily into a free speech absolutist stance since his acquisition of the platform in 2022, often allowing controversial content to remain unless it explicitly violates laws (e.g., direct incitement). The fact that this post and its thread remain active suggests that X is adhering to a Skokie-like principle of allowing even offensive speech, but this has sparked backlash from users and advocacy groups who argue that such content fosters harm, especially against historically targeted communities like Jews, as seen in the post’s prioritization of them for "deportation."

1. Erosion of Public Support for Free Speech Absolutism: The Skokie case was controversial even in 1977, with the ACLU losing members over its defense of the Nazis’ rights. In 2025, public tolerance for hate speech appears to be waning further amid rising polarization and real-world consequences of online rhetoric.

2. The X thread’s casual racism and antisemitism, coupled with replies that double down on these sentiments (e.g., @USA_whale’s claim that deporting Jews would solve “99% of the problem”), may fuel calls for stricter speech regulations.

Isn’t that such an obvious but often overlooked point. Hey dummies! You being so casually racist is throwing red meat to those censorious bastards that are trying to strip us of the first amendment. By the way, I didn’t look at the replies, but Grok refers to them a few times in this. I bet they’re rough!

1. This echoes the web results’ mention of Skokie’s efforts to block the Nazi demonstration, which were driven by community outrage but ultimately failed legally. Today, similar community pressure exists, but it’s amplified by digital platforms and global connectivity, making the debate more visible and volatile.

2. Legal Challenges and Exceptions: While the Skokie principle remains legally robust, there are ongoing efforts to test its boundaries. For instance, the web results note the irony that Skokie’s attempts to censor Nazis mirrored Southern segregationists’ efforts to block civil rights marches in the 1960s, which were also struck down on First Amendment grounds.

3. In 2025, legal battles continue over where the line is drawn—particularly with speech perceived as tied to violence or terrorism. The Trump executive order targeting antisemitic campus protests, for example, raises questions about whether certain forms of speech (e.g., pro-Palestinian activism) might be reclassified as unprotected under broader definitions of “threats” or “incitement.” This could indirectly undermine the Skokie principle by expanding exceptions to free speech protections.

5. Cultural Legacy and Countermeasures: The Skokie case led to positive outcomes like the creation of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center, as noted in the web results, which turned the pain of the controversy into a tool for education and remembrance. In 2025, similar efforts exist to counter hate speech through education and dialogue rather than censorship, but the X post suggests that these efforts haven’t fully stemmed the tide of online bigotry. The Skokie principle’s legacy is that it allows such speech to be countered with more speech—like the museum—rather than suppression, but the scale and speed of digital platforms complicate this approach.

In summary, the Skokie principle of free speech remains a bedrock of U.S. constitutional law in 2025, protecting even the hateful content of the X post and its thread. However, it faces significant challenges from public sentiment, political actions like the Trump executive order, and the evolving role of social media platforms. The principle’s core idea—that the answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship—still holds legally, but its application in a hyper-connected, polarized world is increasingly contentious. The X post’s existence on the platform reflects the principle’s endurance, but the surrounding discourse highlights the growing friction between free expression and the desire to mitigate harm.

Damn! So, that was pretty good. I’m thinking this thing could be the next president. So, I ask.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Freedom Manifesto

What's your take on Ukraine policy? Should we be trying to negotiate an end to that war?

Let’s break this down by examining the U.S. policy on Ukraine, the broader context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and whether negotiating an end to the war is a viable or desirable option in March 2025. I’ll draw on the web results provided, the current geopolitical climate, and some historical parallels to form a reasoned perspective.

U.S. Policy on Ukraine in 2025

The web results give us a snapshot of U.S. policy as of 2022, with updates on the conflict’s trajectory through early 2025. The U.S. State Department, under President Trump and Secretary Rubio, has stated that the conflict between Ukraine and Russia is "unsustainable and must end," emphasizing the use of U.S. leverage, influence, and national power to advance peace (web ID: 0). This policy aligns with broader U.S. support for Ukraine, including $91.5 million in FY2023 assistance to address humanitarian challenges like landmines and unexploded ordnance, which contaminate an area the size of Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut combined.

However, the situation has evolved by March 2025. Russia’s invasion, which began on February 24, 2022, as an escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, remains unresolved (web ID: 1). Putin’s June 2024 terms for a ceasefire—Russia keeping all occupied land, gaining control of claimed provinces, Ukraine abandoning NATO aspirations, and the international community recognizing Russia’s annexations while lifting sanctions—are non-starters for Ukraine and much of the West. Ukraine’s peace delegation, led by Mykhailo Podoliak as of March 16, 2025, has been negotiating a 15-point plan that involves Russian withdrawal, international security guarantees for Ukraine, and a commitment not to pursue NATO membership further. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy has described this plan as a more realistic path to ending the war, though talks remain fragile.

The economic fallout is severe. Russia’s invasion has driven millions into poverty and crippled Ukraine’s economy, while sanctions strain Russia but haven’t halted the war (web ID: 2). The global economic impact includes financial turmoil and personal hardship, with no clear end in sight as of early 2024. Public sentiment in Ukraine, per a February 2024 survey, shows 72% favoring a diplomatic solution alongside military efforts, a shift from earlier polls where 70% wanted to fight until victory (September 2022).

Should the U.S. Push for Negotiations?

Let’s weigh the arguments for and against negotiating an end to the war, considering strategic, moral, and practical dimensions.

Arguments for Negotiating

Humanitarian Imperative: The war’s toll is staggering—millions displaced, widespread poverty, and massive destruction in Ukraine. The State Department notes 160,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian land are contaminated with explosives, posing long-term risks to civilians. Ending the war, even through a compromise, could save lives and allow for rebuilding. The economic strain on the global economy, as highlighted in web ID: 2, also affects food and energy security worldwide, particularly in developing nations reliant on Ukrainian grain.

1. War Fatigue and Public Opinion: By 2024, 72% of Ukrainians supported seeking a diplomatic solution alongside military efforts, up from 26% in 2022. This shift suggests growing exhaustion after three years of conflict. For the U.S., continued military support—billions in aid since 2022—may face domestic pushback as political priorities shift, especially under a Trump administration that has historically questioned prolonged foreign engagements.

2. Geopolitical Realities: Russia shows no sign of withdrawing without significant concessions, and its military position, while costly, allows it to hold occupied territories. The U.S. and NATO have avoided direct military involvement to prevent escalation, but this limits their leverage. A negotiated settlement could prevent a frozen conflict that destabilizes the region for decades, as seen with other post-Soviet disputes like Transnistria or Nagorno-Karabakh.

3. Risk of Escalation: The longer the war drags on, the greater the risk of broader conflict. Putin’s demands include international recognition of annexations, which the West rejects, but his rhetoric about NATO expansion and nuclear posturing (noted in prior years) raises the stakes. A diplomatic off-ramp, even if imperfect, might reduce the chance of a NATO-Russia confrontation.

Arguments Against Negotiating

Rewarding Aggression: Accepting Putin’s terms—allowing Russia to keep occupied territories and forcing Ukraine to abandon NATO—would effectively reward a war of aggression. This sets a dangerous precedent for international law and sovereignty. Historically, appeasement, like the 1938 Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany, emboldened further aggression. Putin’s actions in Crimea (2014) and now in broader Ukraine suggest he may not stop if his demands are met.

1. Ukrainian Sovereignty and Will: Ukraine’s leadership and people have shown remarkable resilience. Zelenskyy’s pursuit of a 15-point plan that includes Russian withdrawal and security guarantees reflects a commitment to sovereignty, not capitulation. The 2022 poll showing 58% of Ukrainians demanding Crimea’s return underscores this resolve. Forcing Ukraine into a deal that cedes territory could undermine its agency and fuel resentment, potentially destabilizing its government.

2. Moral Responsibility: The U.S. and NATO have framed their support for Ukraine as a defense of democracy against authoritarianism. French President Macron’s statement (web ID: 1) calling Russia’s actions "imperialism and colonialism" reflects this moral stance. Abandoning Ukraine to Russian demands could erode Western credibility, especially among Eastern European allies like Poland and the Baltics, who fear Russian expansionism.

3. Sanctions and Pressure: While sanctions haven’t ended the war, they’ve strained Russia’s economy significantly (web ID: 2). A deep recession in Russia, potentially worse than the 1990s rouble crisis, could force Putin to the table on better terms over time. Negotiating now, when Russia holds the upper hand militarily, might lock in an unfavorable outcome for Ukraine and the West.

Practical Considerations

• Feasibility of Negotiations: Putin’s demands are maximalist, and Ukraine’s 15-point plan, while more reasonable, still faces Russian rejection. The gap between the two sides is wide, and trust is nonexistent. Even if a deal is reached, enforcement would be challenging—Russia has violated past agreements like the Minsk Accords.

• U.S. Leverage: The U.S. has significant influence through military aid, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure, but its ability to force a resolution is limited without risking direct conflict. The Trump administration’s focus on "America First" policies may also reduce appetite for long-term involvement.

• Long-Term Stability: Any deal must address security guarantees for Ukraine, demilitarization of contested areas, and a framework for reconstruction. Without these, a ceasefire could simply pause the conflict, not end it.

My Take

The U.S. should support negotiations to end the war, but not at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty or international norms. The humanitarian and economic costs of the conflict are undeniable, and a prolonged war risks further escalation and global instability. However, any negotiation must prioritize Ukraine’s agency—Zelenskyy and his delegation should lead the process, not be pressured into a deal that cedes core principles like territorial integrity.

The U.S. can play a constructive role by:

• Strengthening Ukraine’s Position: Continue military and economic aid to ensure Ukraine negotiates from a position of strength, not desperation. This includes supporting its 15-point plan with security guarantees, potentially through a coalition of allies rather than NATO membership, which remains a red line for Russia.

• Increasing Pressure on Russia: Tighten sanctions, particularly on energy exports, and work with allies to isolate Russia diplomatically. The goal is to make the war unsustainable for Putin, forcing him to compromise.

• Facilitating Diplomacy: Support multilateral talks, like those in Kyiv involving 83 states and three international organizations (web ID: 1), to build a broad coalition for Ukraine’s peace plan. This could include neutral mediators like Turkey or Switzerland to bridge the trust gap.

• Planning for the Long Term: Any deal must include robust mechanisms for enforcement, reconstruction, and addressing war crimes. The U.S. should commit to funding Ukraine’s recovery, including clearing the 160,000 square kilometers of contaminated land, to ensure a sustainable peace.

Negotiating an end to the war is the right goal, but timing and terms matter. Rushing into a deal that legitimizes Russia’s annexations would undermine global security and embolden other aggressors. Instead, the U.S. should focus on creating conditions where a fair and lasting peace is possible, balancing the immediate need to stop the suffering with the long-term imperative of upholding a rules-based international order. The Skokie principle of free speech, while not directly related, offers a parallel lesson: protecting core principles (like free expression or sovereignty) often requires enduring short-term pain for long-term gain. In this case, that means supporting Ukraine’s fight while pushing for a diplomatic resolution that doesn’t sacrifice its future.

Oh, dear. Now he sounds like the damn EU. I’m sorry, but the whole appeasement charade everyone throws around is just bullshit. Putin is not Hitler; every guy the west doesn’t like is not Hitler. Putin has barely been able to take Ukraine, there’s no way in hell he’s gonna keep going and take more countries. I don’t want him to have all of Ukraine, but some of it, he’s taking. We had many off-ramps, Putin has been offering off-ramps since Munich, 2001, and we said “Fuck him” every time. Now, he’s probably gonna end up with a piece of Ukraine as a “buffer zone” between Russia and the next NATO country. I really don’t want the US, my country, in possession of Ukraine either. Can Ukraine just keep Ukraine without either one of us fucking with them. Russia, EU, US, anyone!? So, Grok is sounding like a more reasonable Thierry Breton, which is like saying a HAPPY Stalin. So, I must ask:

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Freedom Manifesto

Do you think it's okay to cancel elections when you don't like the result like Romania did?

The cancellation of Romania’s presidential election in December 2024 raises some tough questions about democracy and when—if ever—it’s justified to hit the reset button. Romania’s Constitutional Court scrapped the whole process just before the second round, pointing to declassified intelligence alleging Russian interference via a TikTok campaign boosting far-right candidate Călin Georgescu. The idea was that this meddling distorted the voters’ will enough to taint the outcome. On the flip side, Georgescu had won the first round fair and square with 22.9% of the vote, and no hard evidence showed votes were directly tampered with—just that social media amplified his reach in a way that broke campaign rules.

Canceling an election because you don’t like who’s winning smells like a slippery slope. If the concern is foreign influence, where’s the line? Social media’s a global free-for-all—ads, bots, and influencers cross borders daily. If every election with a whiff of outside noise gets axed, you’d be canceling a lot of them. Romania’s move assumes the electorate can’t see through propaganda, which underestimates voters and risks giving whoever’s in power a handy excuse to nix results they don’t vibe with. Imagine if the U.S. had canceled 2016 over Russia’s Facebook memes—same vibe, different scale.

That said, Romania’s not wrong to worry about hybrid threats. NATO and EU countries like them are in Russia’s crosshairs, and TikTok’s a known vector for influence ops. The intelligence suggested a coordinated push—25,000 accounts, undeclared funding, paid influencers—which isn’t just random noise. If it’s provable that this flipped the result (a big "if"), protecting the system might justify drastic action. But the execution was messy: voting had already started abroad, and the public’s still in the dark on specifics. Transparency’s lacking, and that fuels distrust more than any TikTok campaign could.

The real kicker? Even Georgescu’s opponent, Elena Lasconi, called it a democracy killer, and polls suggest most Romanians think canceling was a mistake. If the goal was to save trust in the process, it backfired—hard. A better play might’ve been disqualifying Georgescu if the evidence held up, not torching the whole election. Restarting from scratch just screams “we didn’t like round one.” Democracy’s messy, not dead. Let it play out unless the fraud’s undeniable—otherwise, you’re not saving it, you’re breaking it.

Fuck it! I’m back onboard! Grok/Siri2028

Anyways, just a fun post, playing with AI. People at work are always trying to convince to use it to help with my writing and research and I just can’t do it. This writing, this research, it’s too personal to me. I’m learning in real time while I’m writing to you about what I learned, and I think I can do a better job figuring out what’s actually happening from a human-to-human standpoint than any robot could do for me. Every time I go into a topic with my mind made up on what happened I get surprised.

If AI does my writing for me, how will I ever discover a line, so beautifully crafted together it makes my soul weep, and how can I ever look at one of those, beautifully crafted, sentences and think, “God, one day I will make something as beautiful as this.” AI can do a lot, but it can’t produce that feeling. I hope, one day, I can.

Thank you for reading.

Editor-in-Chief

The role of a free press is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. —Seymour Hersh, Reporter

“From the moment Trump returned to office, his second administration has prioritized giving access and status to an array of far-right influencers and news outlets, including figures with checkered pasts and thin or nonexistent journalistic credentials. In doing so the administration has created a swell of flattering media coverage,” wrote Anna Merlan in Mother Jones, “a gauzy bubble around its every decision, no matter how destructive or incoherent.”

“For the most part, this new crop of people who have been given extremely good access are not journalists in the traditional sense,” says Margaret Sullivan, executive director of the Craig Newmark Center for Journalism Ethics and Security at Columbia University and a former public editor for the New York Times.

“They’re closer to propagandists than journalists,” Sullivan adds. “I don’t know if you could call it ‘coverage.’ It’s positive exposure for the Trump administration. They’ll be part of a cheering squad.”

Editor of HuffPost, once a glorified clickbait publication, now one of the publications sidelined from White House press pool, says, “the White House must stop this cowardly behavior and restore HuffPost’s place in the press pool immediately.”

The WHCA expressed concern that the White House's new control might benefit friendly news outlets and compromise press independence.

But according to The Hill:

“Last week, 40 news organizations signed a joint letter to the White House in support of The Associated Press. Even some conservative outlets, including Fox News and Newsmax, urged the White House to restore the AP’s access. Newsmax released a statement, saying, “We can understand President Trump’s frustration because the media has often been unfair to him, but Newsmax supports the AP’s right, as a private organization, to use the language it wants to use in its reporting.”

Oliver Darcy of Status News first reported on the “confidential” letter and the two traditionally pro-Trump outlets’ inclusion. “The First Amendment prohibits the government from asserting control over how news organizations make editorial decisions. Any attempt to punish journalists for those decisions is a serious breach of this Constitutional protection,” the letter reads, according to Darcy’s report.

So, which is it? These “friendly” publications and propagandists are afraid to pushback for fear of being kicked out of the pool, or they’re willing to pushback on being allowed in the “pool?”

Are they given access as “part of the cheering squad?” Or are you all upset because you no longer have a monopoly on the “press pool,” and the unmonopolized media are kicking your ass!

You no longer get to say who gets press credentials, or who gets to ask questions and how many they get to ask. I’m sure it sucks to be on your side right now, but the last four years were the same on the other side of the aisle. In the meantime, how about growing a pair and being a real journalist and not taking “no” for an answer. Go undercover. If Steven Crowder can pull it off surely the AP can! , in order to get his Pulitzer Prize winning “My Lai Massacre” story or his famous expose of the “CIA’s Illegal Domestic Spying” he had to have a trick or two up his sleeve. That would be much more respectable than screeching about censorship, after you laughed in all of our faces when we showed you all proof of a government censorship apparatus that targets either side of the aisle depending on who is opposing the “approved narrative.”

Share

Share Declaration of Liberty

Here’s Hersh referring to how little the White House Press Corps cared about the CIA under Nixon spying on American citizens:

Since few, if any, in the Washington press corps seemed to be interested in adding to my domestic spying account, I did not take my family on a New Year’s holiday. I instead pounded out story after story over the next month with the goal—never stated, of course—of ensuring that Alan Cranston and his colleagues in the Senate would agree to set up a special investigating committee to look into CIA abuses.

And during Vietnam talks:

It was malarkey and I remember wondering how Kissinger had managed to get away with such fulsome flattery with the White House press corps. I thought the reporters assigned to that beat were at the top of the game and could not be as easy to please as was the Pentagon press corps in my days there. I was wrong and Kissinger was right.

And during the Obama Administration after the “Killing of Osama Bin Laden” which Seymour Hersh wrote a book telling the actual story of how it went down:

The story got a good deal of attention, but I was not surprised by the refusal, or the inability, of the press to follow up on the vital aspect of my story—the double cross of Pakistan. The media focused, as I feared would happen, not on what I wrote but on why it wasn’t in The New Yorker. The possibility that two dozen navy SEALs could escape observation and get to bin Laden without some help from the Pakistani military and intelligence communities was nil, but the White House press corps bought the story. Twenty-four-hour cable news was devouring the news-reporting business, TV panelist by TV panelist.

MSNBC says:

“The White House takeover of the press pool is a brazen attack on the First Amendment. The Trump administration is overturning a century-old system that guarantees equal access to the news media.”

Share

Share Declaration of Liberty

Politico says:

Tuesday, asserting that the White House Correspondents’ Association “should no longer have a monopoly” on organizing press pools and that the White House would determine the makeup of the pool on a day-to-day Press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the newest changes in the briefing room on basis.

“All journalists, outlets and voices deserve a seat at this highly coveted table,” Leavitt said.

WHCA, a group of journalists on the beat elected by their peers, have long overseen the rotations of print, radio and television correspondents that make up the pool, a 13-member group of journalists allowed access to the president in smaller settings.

“This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States,” said Eugene Daniels, the president of WHCA’s board and a POLITICO correspondent. “It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”

For many years the press has worked as the propaganda arm of whoever was in charge. It has been this way, maybe since the 90’s. This is the same reason that in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the propagandists that cheered it on, confirming every lie—and false intelligence briefing—got promotions, while those who rightfully dissented and called it out for what it really was got severance packages, and a ticket to “Never work in this town again!”

Much further than the 90’s, here’s an excerpt of an article by I.F. Stone, in his book “The Haunted Fifties 1953-1963” part of his series of books A Nonconformist History of our Times on November 15th, 1955:

The third obstacle is that this has always been and is now more than ever a conformist country. It doesn’t take much deviation from Rotary Club norms in the average American community to get oneself set down as queer, radical, and unreliable.

Against this background, it is easy to see why the average Washing ton correspondent is content to write what he is spoon-feed by the government’s press officers. Especially since the press is largely Republican and this is a Republican Administration, there is little market for “exposing” the government. Why dig up a story which the desk back home will spike?

It seems the only difference in ‘55 is back then he was putting the blame on the editors aligning with the government, now it’s the journalists too. When there is a Democrat Administration the press pool is primarily democrat, when there is a Republican Administration the press pool is primarily Republican. And after every election, a realignment occurs.

Stone continues:

It was this astringent view of our profession and its circumstances which I found lacking in the newspaperman’s testimony which opened the investigation launched here by a special House subcommittee on government “information.” The most perceptive of the witnesses, and one of our very best reporters, James Reston of the New York Times, put his finger on the vital point when he said that worse than suppression was the “managing” of the news by government departments. But the news is “managed” because the reporters and their editors let themselves be managed.

And that last bit is truer now more than ever. Continuing:

The State Department is an outstanding offender. Very often, for example, newspaper readers get not so much what actually happened at the UN as the “slant” given out in the corridors afterward to the reporters by a State Department attaché.

The private dinner, the special taping, are all devices for “managing” the news, as are the special organizations of privileged citizens gathered in by the State and Defense Departments for those sessions at which highly confidential (and one-sided) information is ladled out to a flattered “elite.”

As a reporter who began by covering small towns, where one has to dig for the news, I can testify that Washington is in many ways one of the easiest cities in the world to cover. The problem is the abundance of riches. It is true that the Government, like every other government in the world, does its best to distort the news in its favor—but that only makes the job more interesting.

Most of my colleagues agree with the Government and write the accepted thing because that is what they believe; they are indeed—with honorable exceptions—as suspicious of the non-conformist as any group in Kiwanis.

This comes back to a theme I constantly rail on about. That being, when the government is working well it is oppressive. In this case, the government working as a “well-oiled” machine is perfect “management” of the news. Meaning we only find out what they want us to find out.

The New York Post asks, “Where was the WHCA when the Obama administration was spying on then-Fox reporter James Rosen’s email and phone records?”

It acts like a cartel, ridiculing and ostracizing conservative voices Remember Chanel Rion from OANN?

The WHCA tried to banish her from the White House.

She had to bring her own folding deck chair and sit in the back of the briefing room.

Or Simon Ateba, the African journalist who ran afoul of Biden’s hopeless press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre?

The group rescinded his membership and would not even let him buy a ticket to its annual partisan dinner, where WHCA officeholders canoodled repulsively onstage with Biden and Kamala Harris.

In Trump’s first term, by contrast, the WHCA invited a nasty comedian to trash the appearance of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, his then-press secretary.

Each administration, maybe throughout the last century, made it their business to keep a tight watch on the press pool. Freedom of the press, in the Western Hemisphere, isn’t nearly as free as we’d like to pretend.

Each Administration makes it less free than the one before, wanna see how the last administration treated the press? Hit play below.

The journalist was . A world-renowned journalist who’s dedicated his life to the principle of “Comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.”

How about in the Obama Administration? Have you seen the video that was leaked to Julian Assange called ‘Collateral Murder?’ (Video Below-At Own Risk)

George W. Bush once said that he considers “the media to be indispensable to democracy. We needed the media to hold people like me to account.” But we all know how well that turned out. We murdered a million people in a country that was fully compliant with all guardrails put up to keep Saddam’s regime from producing “weapons of mass destruction” on the grounds that they were now producing weapons of mass destruction. They were not. And the media, on both sides, cheered on these murders, and the Bush administration didn’t need to keep “unfriendly” media out, the MEDIA kept “unfriendly” media out.

So, is the Trump administration banning “unfriendly” media from the White House? Probably. Like every administration before.

It would seem, if you heard it from HuffPost, or MSNBC, or the Associated Press, or from the “friendly” media like Newsmax, that they’d locked AP journalists in Stalin’s Gulag, but they simply replaced the AP with Axios, a fellow “unfriendly” news source.

This is after the Associated Press, or AP, had a monopoly on the press pool for many years in the past. They would choose who gets to ask questions, the seating arrangement, based on who has more reach, always “televised in the front” while the now, more popular, internet journalists were stuffed in the back where they would never get called on for their questions, leaving them to do things like this:

In 2023, more than 440 reporters lost press credentials after President Joe Biden’s White House modified its rules for eligibility for permanent passes.

Credentialed White House press members dropped from 1,417 members to 975 members after the White House unveiled new standards requiring an annual renewal of hard passes, Politico reported in 2023. Journalists without hard passes were still authorized to apply for day passes to the White House.

The Biden White House policy was launched in May 2023 and required reporters to prove employment with "an organization whose principal business is news dissemination" and show that they have "accessed the White House campus at least once during the prior six months for work, or have proof of employment within the last three months to cover the White House.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

But Congress didn’t make a law restricting the freedom of speech, and neither did the Donald Trump White House. It’s his right as president to say who comes in the White House. This is why, when Fredrik Douglas, the former slave, and first black person to enter the White House, even though many didn’t want him to come in, the President let him in anyways, and many presidents up until recent times didn’t let another black person in. Controversial? Yes, but his choice nevertheless.

recently commented, “People are claiming the White House is bullying the AP, repeating the saw that Trump is telling them “what words to use.” If you don’t see the irony, you’ve never used the AP stylebook.”

Racket News

Trump is Trolling the AP

Statement from the Associated Press…

Read more

a year ago · 1687 likes · 829 comments · Matt Taibbi

I must admit, that in all the chaos I forgot that we’re talking about the same AP. They literally have a book, used internationally, that tell you “What words to use in journalism.” I used it, a lot more in my earlier writing, but because I’m not a journalism major, in fact the only degree I have is being an avid reader, and I received honors recognition for writing and language arts when I gave up on public school and took the GED. So, I did thumb through the AP Stylebook just to get down the format of journalism, however, I kinda do my own thing now.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Declaration of Liberty

Now, it’s still too early to tell about the Trump 2.0 Administration, but so far, they’ve taken part in the least censorship of any administration in my lifetime. The Biden Administration was the most censorious regime, however, since the Gilded Age, and the publications and outlets now yelling about censorship are the same outlets that said was a “non-story” and laughed when the New York Post’s story on Hunter Biden’s famous laptop was limited on all platforms. Done at the governments behest by an NGO that was created and funded by Congress. If that’s not censorship, the AP, whose ran a monopoly on language for decades, losing their precious little “press pass,” definitely isn’t censorship.

I’m happy more views are finally making it into the White House, and if the AP has to take the hit for that to happen, then off with their heads!

Thank you for reading. This is , Editor-in-Chief,

Nancy and Ronald Reagan were the woke in the 80’s, Bush Sr and Clinton in the 90’s, W. Bush in the 2000’s, college kids in the 2010’s, and Ben Shapiro in the 2020’s. —J.L.Canter

Right Place, Right Time

The Voice Got the Exclusive Because They Were Already There…

Just finished the audiobook The Freaks Came out to Write, it is the definitive history of the Village Voice and as radical and liberal as it was, and as terribly corporate and oppressive as it is now, it was the Substack of its time. There’s a chapter in it about the Stonewall riots, they were the first paper reporting on it, and if you know about the Voice you might say, well sure, gay rights was exclusively covered by the Village Voice back then, but that wasn’t it. They were the first paper reporting on it because they were at the right place, at the right time.

The writers at the paper would go to the Lion’s Head to drink after they got off work, two doors down from the Stonewall Inn. They said there was peepholes drilled into the wall so they could keep a look out. See, homosexuality was a crime back then, and this was a gay bar. One of the bars had a red light and when the light would turn on, the men would separate, it meant the cops were there. The Stonewall was a gay bar with no liquor license, so it was handled by the mob. In Manhattan at the time, you had to pay off the mob, who would pay off the cops, so they wouldn’t raid your bar. The Stonewall missed a payment, and history was made.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Declaration of Liberty

The Only Place to Turn, is the Right Place to be

When all the censorious attacks on speech were being conducted during Covid, the only platform left was Substack. Quite honestly Substack was the place to be if you wanted the truth. There have been many movements to discredit this platform. To make us out as kooks. To make alternative media out as kooks, but we are at the right place, at the right time.

I see a thread here that runs through here. From the I.F. Stone Weekly to , , , , and . Also, there’s many still holding out on YouTube, I’m a personal fan of Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith’s Part of the Problem, these places are the right place at the right time.

An election just happened; they’re calling it “The Podcast Election”. I’m calling it the “right place, at the right time Election”.

Alternative Media IS the Right Place, and THIS is the Right Time

As the mainstream media becomes, no longer mainstream, the writers and journalists here at Substack, and the internet as a whole, are at the right place at the right time. We are the Alt-media, in the midst of its rise to mainstream, and thanks to and and whoever else was involved in the rise of Substack, this is where the story is! And Substack holds an extremely precious position, because when the holdouts on YouTube and other places start to get censored, this platform will be here waiting for them. This is truly the only uncensored platform in the world! I know so many people love to call the new-Twitter that, and I’m so thankful for the Twitter Files, but it’s just not! New-Twitter is actively censoring every account that posts a Substack link, in any post, anywhere in their bio, or shares a Substack link with anyone! Even if you are not a Substack writer you get censored for posting a story with a Substack link in it. I've heard the argument, “Well, it’s just business.” I don’t give a fuck what you call it, it's censorship. It sure as fuck ain’t freedom!

I got a permanent ban from Twitter, 3 months into Elon’s ownership for telling someone to kill themselves, but not so explicitly. I was defending over the Twitter Files coverage. At that time there was a flurry of the same mindless repeat comments under everything Matt posted, and after seeing the way the government uses these bot accounts to attack adversaries, I assumed these were fake accounts. I posted under one, after seeing him repeat under five different posts by Matt, “Taibbi doing PR for billionaires”, so I commented under it “If you are a real person, you should kill yourself”. It was real quick, zero thought put into it. I logged out, came back later and was gone. So, now I have to operate as an anon account, on Twitter, and by the way, if I found out the person killed themselves, I’d be devastated but it was a troll, trolling, and I took the bait and got the boot. Also, I agree with a suspension but a permanent ban after the 1st offense?! Come on. You can follow me however at Right2BareWords on Twitter or X, just saying.

If you want the unadulterated truth, the only place it exists is in this alt-media landscape, Substack, Rumble, Locals I do believe! It’s here, and here to stay. Noam Chomsky once said, “If you want to get information, sure, read the New York Times, but read it with your eyes open. With a critical mind. The Times is full of facts. You’re not going to find the information there on Facebook.” Chomsky has had a hard time with that last sentence. I’d say, read everything with open eyes, there’s fact to find everywhere, including Facebook.

Politically Correct is Woke; Henry Kissinger is Politically Correct

One more time and I swear I won’t say it again; we are at the right place at the right time. Political correction, or wokeness, shows up during every moment of discontent, and moments of discontent are always right around the corner, the solution to both is an uncensored, unadulterated, free alternative-press, and that’s who we are here at Substack. Sounds like I’m doing an ad for . I assure you I am not; I’m doing an ad for myself. For this medium, in 2025, the biggest year in new-media.

Alternative Media, Then and Now

My point is the Alternative press got the story because they were there when it happened. Think about Covid, Russiagate, all the stories that couldn’t be reported on, only seen the light of day because of the alternative press here at Substack. It was the only place you could find the truth, because it was the only place not censoring the truth. We got the story because we were where the light could shine through.

Imagine if the New Yorker, when they opposed the woke police, wouldn’t have run the My Lai story for , who is now here with us by the way, what if no one would? That was a period of discontent, and Nixon and Kissinger were the woke. A decade earlier or later, they wouldn’t run that story if their lives depended on it.

***For sake of argument I’ll leave it with Nixon, but I truly believe there was other forces in intelligence asserting power on Nixon to push him out of office, but it is an unimpeachable truth that Nixon and Kissinger acted as villains towards the media and antiwar activists. It is true that Nixon wanted the Great Daniel Ellsberg “Taken care of”, but it starts to get fishy when you see what was done. The “White House Plumber’s” who were all employees of the CIA except one who was in the FBI, months before the break-in at the “Watergate Hotel”, which went down in history, they broke into Daniel Ellsberg’s Psychiatrists office, to find proof that he was some kind of “subversive character”, they totally flubbed the break-in and did not find his file, but there was no reason to think this about Dan, and no proof that Nixon ordered them to do it, but it sure looked that way. It was the first step in destroying Richard Nixon, and bringing down a President, whether he ordered it or not.***

The mainstream press was politically correct in the 60’s and there was a thriving alt-media covering the stories that the mainstream wouldn’t touch, or would get way wrong, sound familiar? After seeing the Alt-Press getting the stories people wanted to read all through the 60’s, places like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times started covering real stories in the 70’s, and hired Alt-Press Journalists like and Neil Sheehan, who covered the Pentagon Papers. This never lasts long; these big publications don’t handle government scrutiny well. They need corporate ad revenue to carry on, and they falter when pressed too hard. They won the greatest case in history for the free press, New York Times Co. v. United States, The Pentagon Papers case. Nixon filed an injunction to stop the NYT paper from going to press over the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. This was the first time a newspaper had ever been stopped from publishing a story and went to the high court quickly.

Nixon argued that prior restraint of the free press was necessary to protect national security, the Supreme Court did not. It was ruled that the government cannot restrain the press from publishing ever again after this case, they proceeded to publish the Pentagon Papers with zero holds barred, it was the greatest win for free speech in history, a time for celebration, but the NYT still advanced into a corporate shell of its former self.

Leave a comment

The "Greater" Substack Region of the Alt-Media

Outside of Substack there is also alternative-media who exist solely on the internet getting these stories right, or at least taken an honest wack at them, from covid to Russiagate to the 2024 election. We must include places like The Grayzone-who’s continuously breaking stories the corporate media won’t touch, Consortium News—who’s broken more stores the Mockingbird media wouldn’t touch than any other publication known to man, that’s thanks to the late Robert Parry! Scheer Post runs all of Chris Hedges stories since he was censored by the New York Times! The Dark Horse Podcast w/ and who are actual Biologists with PHD’s in Evolutionary Biology. They do some stuff on Substack, but they mostly exist on YouTube, Rumble, and Locals. They were completely demonetized and slammed by the censorship-industrial complex during Covid, also. Anti-War.com-The name says it all, it’s the best source in the world for geopolitics and the opposition to war, and the lies they are telling us. All these places are. The YouTube channels still holding on, work around the oppressive algorithm by using nicknames and such to trick it, shout out to Part of the Problem w/ Dave Smith & Rob Bernstein, The Jimmy Dore Show, Breaking Points, and , who’s joined us here on Substack. Oh, I must mention Rumble, who’s literally charged “The free speech alternative to YouTube”, where the great Glenn Greenwald has migrated to with his System Update, and Stay Free w/ Russell Brand, Dan Bongino, and lots of others. These are the free press, the Alternative Press, our allies in the fight for truth.

Discontent and the Alternative Media

***I should probably point out that every time I use the term alt, alternative, or any combination of such, this word can be swapped out with Independent. I realize the word “Alt-” has been bastardized by the recent events and demonizing, whether deserved or not, of the “Alt-Right”.***

***It’s just a word, there are more.***

There has always been an alternative media, in times of discontent, opposing political correction, or wokeness, throughout the years.

During and surrounding Stonewall they were fighting for gay rights, avoiding the draft, and opposing the war. Today we would call them the woke, but the woke are always the ones calling for suppression of civil rights in the name of their thing. Or actively suppressing the individualistic nature of human thoughts and expression. The woke back then supported the war, and hated draft dodgers, they prosecuted draft dodgers, and conscientious objectors, because that was not politically correct. The politically correct, or wokesters suppressed the exposure of their war crimes, and people like I.F. Stone, and were trying to expose them. Here’s an excerpt from an article, The Rise of the Underground Press:

As youth culture and 1960’s social movements emerged, the mainstream media missed, ignored, and/or confused the story. As a result, anyone seeking to learn what was really happening in Vietnam, or in United States politics generally, or who wanted to learn about marches, protests and rallies, or who wanted to read about rock and underground music and get the youth perspective on movies and other pop culture – had to go to the alternative press.

These were the days before corporations’ co-opted “alternative” culture like hip-hop music seemingly overnight. As much as it is argued that corporate media organizations go where the money is, in the 1960’s these institutions sought to suppress rather than co-opt the counter-culture, causing an underground press to emerge and thrive.

The counter-culture, that’s what it is, but whoever is counter to the politically correct, or the corporate-interested, or state-affiliated, or woke—these terms mean the same thing—is on the right side of history.

Nancy and Ronald Reagan were the woke in the 80’s, Bush Sr and Clinton in the 90’s, W. Bush in the 2000’s, college kids in the 2010’s, and Ben Shapiro in the 2020’s.

Ronald at the time, was using the Contra’s to overthrow the leftist Democratically-Elected Sandinistas in Nicaragua—as I can’t seem to stop talking about—and in order to avoid Congressional Oversight were going along with tons—literally tons—of cocaine going to Los Angeles, and straight to South Central, for the money to provide to the Contras, at the same time that the crack epidemic was exploding Nancy Reagan was running her famous “Just Say No” Campaign and began the long-running, civil rights suppressing, life ruining, “War on Drugs”, and guess who was covering this? It wasn’t the NYT! It was the Alternative Media! A bunch of these stories were broken by Consortium News’ Founder, the late Robert Parry.

Think about the rampant idiocrasy of Russiagate, where was the NYT on that, they were wrong, and they were wrong on purpose! Alt-Media won; How about the Covid years, boy the Covid years were fucked up for mainstream press and pundits, they worked in lockstep to keep us locked in our homes and distribute a shot that was dangerous and had very little positive effects, if any! While actual scientists who tried to expose this and real journalists who tried to report on this were censored out of existence, but here at Substack there was thousands of articles every day, screaming at the top of their lungs that something ain’t right here! By the way, thank you for that! We now have all the good ones.

Today they’re actively suppressing stories of the current wars, like they always have.

And the newest one, the cognitive decline of our, still, current president Joe Biden, wasn’t spoken of in the corporate press until they had no choice. We all knew it, alt-media was constantly reporting on it, and the corporate media were screaming, “It’s okay! Nothing to see here….” all the way until that doomed final debate, when they just couldn’t hide it anymore.

Each time they set up a false narrative and get exposed as corporate-funded liars they get less and less relevant, and now, nobody believes them.

In times of discontent and political correction, the alt-media are the only ones with the ability to tell the truth, and today the discontent has reached its peak, and the mainstream press are at an all-time low. Degraded on so many levels, that the Alternative Media, the ones telling the unadulterated truth have reached the mainstream. And being the least censored platform in existence we are at the head of this alt-media movement, right here at Substack, this is the right place, at the right time!

Thank you for reading! Editor-in-Chief

Things get to terrible places one tiny step at a time,

You know, if I encroach on you and I'm sophisticated about it, I'm going to encroach two millimeters,

I'm going to encroach right to the point where you stop and start to protest, then I'm going to stop. I'm going to wait, then you're going to calm down,

Then I'm going to encroach again, right to the point where you start to protest. Then I'm going to stop.

Then I'm going to wait,

And I'm just going to do that forever, and before you know it, you're going to be back three miles from where you started,

And you'll have done it one step at a time

And then you'll go, “Oh how'd I get here?”

And the answer will be, “Well I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone, and you agreed, so then I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone again, and you agreed again” and I kept repeating that process, now here we are, at the edge, where I wanted you from the start. —Jordan Peterson, on how “things go to terrible places, one tiny step at a time”

Alex Jones—Infowarrior to State Pariah

I’m writing this on Thursday, November 13th, 2024. On my lunch break at work and just listened to what—from the sounds of it—was Alex Jones last dispatch from the Infowars studio in Austin, TX. Why? Because of collusion between state, local, and federal governments, who set out to ruin it. The thing that we used to say was “they can’t take that book off the market because that will give it credibility. (Behold a Pale Horse for example). First off, from a Streisand Effect position, what do they think this is going to do? Also, who do they think they are? Alex Jones is simply broadcasting the things that are being said across America, wouldn’t they want—if this person is really saying these Bad things—this person to keep broadcasting so they can hear what’s being said??? No, that’s not what they’re doing. They want to destroy him, for daring to speak, we let it stand, it’s too late for that, I know he’ll continue in because this is the age of the Infowar. I’m really curious about what venue he’ll be joining after this is all over because there’s not a chance he’ll be gone. Alex Jones has been broadcasting since I was a toddler, after all he was the guy who predicted that an aircraft would be used to target a national monument like the World Trade Center, and they would blame someone like Osama Bin Laden. He hit my radar in 2008, I moved in with a girl who was very online, and she religiously watched Infowars. At that time, he was on FEMA camps and Martial Law, I pretended to get it, but it seemed so crazy, to the point of fictional. Truth is I just didn’t care enough to look into it. I was a hopeless drug addict that didn’t have inhibitions that went any deeper than that. By the way, Alex was right in 2008 his timing was just off, it wasn’t until “15 days to slow the spread” that we seen internment camps and Martial Law.

The Genesis—Who is Alex Jones? Why Do They Hate Him?

Alex Jones started his career as an anti-corruption activist and pirate radio broadcaster, he’s never been a partisan back (Although if you listened to him now that’d be hard to believe). And his career will end the same way, but not today. He has always gone towards the side more in line with fighting corruption. His fight has always been with whoever’s rights need defending. Which has always been the American people versus the Government. He has never fought top-down it’s always been bottom-up, I mean he started in PIRATE-RADIO! I don’t even know how that works! He started in the 90’s during the Clinton Administration, at the time of Waco and Timothy McVeigh.

During Waco it was the 76 men, woman, and children that were burned to death by the FBI and the ATF, at Ruby Ridge it was the Weaver family being attacked by the ATF and US Marshall’s, in 1999, in Seattle it was Special Ops sending in Delta Force Agents dressed as demonstrators into a peaceful protest about worker’s rights to provoke violence (Agent Provocateurs), in the Bush years it was the American people being marched toward war with people who our government had provoked into attacking our towers, in the Obama years it was America being fed on by vampiric corporations feeding us toxins over here and murdering whole families by remote control in the middle east, in the Trump years it became the Democrats trying to turn the little boys into little girls and framing the sitting President of the country he loves for TREASON, and now all those enemies are coming after him, of course they’re winning!

Now, we can say, “No, Jordan! He said the thing, and that’s why they’re after him!”

And sure, that’s a reason to be upset at him, maybe even hate him, look, you don’t have to like him, but what you cannot do is because he said something that caused backlash, use all the powers vested between the corporate media and federal government to destroy his life, likeness and businesses that he built from the ground up. If Rachel Maddow and what’s his name from FOX News (I gotta Google fox news to remember the guy’s name every time I bring him up) Sean Hannity, if they get to stay on the air so does fucking Alex Jones. The only difference between them is Alex doesn’t have corporate ad companies from Big Pharma and fucking oil companies and the military-industrial complex ads, you know Pfizer, Chevron, and Raytheon, (and also tied to mega-corps of the world Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street—watch this video) backing him up when he says something questionable. And he says a lot of questionable shit, but so do they.

THE DAY AFTER…

Last night I got home from work, got online and what do I see? Alex Jones Infowars studio sold to The Onion, of course it was. I always knew the onion was a fucking psyop. Who does CNN have on to talk about it? America’s favorite Corporate Media piggie Brian Stelter:

By the way, this is also Brian Stelter:

This was kind of brushed under the rug with the win of Trump last week and his current cabinet picks causing lots of noise, but although those are big stories, that will affect us geopolitically, this is an attack on us domestically, this is our 1st amendment on the line, this matters too!

AND I DID NOT SPEAK OUT…

There’s an article that has made the rounds since 2018, “First they came for Alex Jones…” by Jack Cashill, that points out the fear that even the biggest Alex Jones haters should feel about this:

If these media outposts have no cause for alarm, Alex Jones does. So does every other right-of-center voice in America. An exchange on comedian Bill Maher’s HBO show Friday suggests why the reductio ad Hitlerum in the title of this essay, if a stretch, is still more justified than those ululated by America’s newspapers.

When Maher explained to his audience that Apple, Google, Facebook, and Spotify colluded to boot Jones and InfoWars from their platforms, most in the audience applauded enthusiastically. More troubling, guest Jennifer Granholm, a former Michigan governor, shouted, “Thank God.”

To his credit, the contrarian Maher scolded the audience. "If you're a liberal you're supposed to be for free speech,” he said. “That's free speech for the speech you hate." He made little headway with the audience or his guests. If any other prominent liberal voice in the media protested Jones’s exile, he or she or ‘zhe’ has done so sotto voce.

One can argue that the media platforms that evicted Jones were private concerns, but the collusion among them was symptomatic of the nearly universal urge on the left to suppress speech that challenges the left/liberal agenda.

He continues in this article to layout four courses of media malfeasance, I want to point out one, for those on the side of, “Alex Jones questioned Sandy Hook and caused harassment, he deserves anything he gets…”:

Even more shameful was the media’s treatment of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in 2012. Needing to blame something other than her own incompetence for the assault on the Benghazi consulate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a memo the night of the attack indicting some “inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Nakoula, an American citizen, produced the video that allegedly did the inflaming.

Nakoula was vulnerable. He had been arrested years earlier for a check-kiting scheme and cooperated quietly with the feds. To protect him, the feds sealed the document. After Benghazi, the Obama DoJ promptly unsealed it and leaked it to the New York Times.

The Times reported on Nakoula’s earlier conviction just three days after the smoke had cleared in Benghazi. The release of this information exposed Nakoula to harassment by the media and reprisal from the ringleader of the check-kiting operation.

Once he was identified, the Times and the other media camped out in front of Nakoula’s California house, not to protect him from the death threats he was facing, but to join in the manhunt. To assure their readers they had tracked the right man, the Times’ reporters pointed out the similarities between Nakoula’s front door and the front door of a house used in the video.

Still on probation and feeling like he had little choice, Nakoula pled guilty to unauthorized use of the Internet in his uploading of the video. He was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release.

Some months after his arrest I tracked Nakoula down to La Tuna, a federal prison in the westernmost tip of Texas. I was the first person in the media to contact him.

The story of Alex Jones and Sandy Hook is simply the story of what sometimes happens with free speech, in a society where we also have a certain percentage of our populace who are mentally ill. Alex Jones looked into the Sandy Hook story the same way he looked into every other big story in American culture over the years, he very early on seen that it was real, it did happen and moved on. There was, however, some people who didn’t move on and that can’t be blamed on Alex Jones any more than it could be blame on anybody who looks into stories, trying to find the truth. Alex Jones has never harassed anyone, except maybe Marco Rubio, which liberals should be happy about this week! I know I am.

The Struggle Post-Big Tech Collusion

It is now November 16th, 3 days after the shutdown, and many of the pundit class have sounded off on this issue, one of them being , I defended Mr. Hanania early on in my writing when it was said that Richard Hanania was a nazi! Used to write for a nazi publication under a pseudonym! Or saying things like ‘mentioning IQ’ in most any context. They tried to destroy him just the same as they did Alex Jones! His note about this was okay, he made a point, that just the same as the Sandmann V CNN settlement was well-deserving so was the Sandy Hook Families V Infowars, the difference is this case never came up until he supported Donald Trump and fucking Nicholas Sandmann didn’t then take ownership of CNN! They’re taking Infowars, setting up an auction of everything Infowars owns and even fighting to take the namesake Alex Jones! Hanania ended his Note by saying that nobody cares about Infowars anymore and I must disagree with this, anyone who takes the time to look through this case cares about it. If they don’t they should! If they care about the 1st Amendment anyway. Also, if no one cares explain the following screenshot of last week’s episode, the day of the auction, taken from the biggest podcast in the world:

That’s the 2 Top comments! Someone cares.

Subscribe now

Share

The Offensive

So, now it’s Sunday, and the most recent reporting on this story, is Infowars was shut down on Thursday, and the Onion took possession of it. Then, new news came out that a judge had looked into it and realized, as Alex had been screaming at the top of his lungs on his show the entire time, there is something improper about this auction, lemme explain:

• Alex Jones was sued for defamation and harassment in Connecticut and Texas for talking on his radio show Infowars, the truth, which was not that the horrific Sandy Hook massacre didn’t happen, but that there was a large swath of internet sleuths and conspiracy theorists, radicalized by the lies from our government, who were pointing out what they viewed as inconsistencies in the Sandy Hook story. They believed the people on the news were what they called crisis actors, and this was a ploy to take away the 2nd amendment for the safety of the people. Now, many people blame school shootings on the availability of guns in America and it mainly comes from one side of the aisle, but most of the listeners of Infowars are very much under the assumption—as am I—that if the 2nd amendment is stripped away, it will be easier for the government to control the American people. Not that anyone could go to war with the government, as the strawman argument goes (you couldn’t fight the government, they have nukes, and missiles, and tanks). That’s not the argument, the argument is they would be less apt to impose on you if there is a chance of bodily harm, maybe there will be a day when we don’t have to be so skeptical of them, but today’s not the day. Anyways, it’s not crazy to assume the people crazy enough to confront the victims of this horrible crime’s families are also listeners of Alex Jones show Infowars. By the way, some war hawks watch MSNBC, should Donald Trump be allowed to sue them over Thomas Crooks, or the radicalization of Ryan Routh? Routh was definitely saying a lot of the same talking points that MSNBC was saying.

• Alex Jones received an almost a $965 Million-dollar judgment from CT and $49 Million from TX. This is $1 Billion & $24 Million, this is the type of money won from Monsanto for actually killing people, which resulted in a $2 billion-dollar judgement. Note: He is in no way related to Adam Lanza, the actual killer and he in no way caused anyone any harm, and if we—here in western civilization—are going to start submitting to the danger of free speech in a free society maybe we should start following North Korean standards and start our own Kim Jong Un Family. By the way, they sought $2.75 Trillion Dollars in this judgment. The audacity of seeking this kind of money from anyone except maybe the Lanza Family for creating the murderous little bastard who did the shit is arrogant and absurd and it’s not even the families asking for this kind of money, it’s the powers that be who want Alex Jones gone!

• Here’s a clip of Alex addressing all this on the PBD Podcast, there’s no reporting that what he’s saying here isn’t true:

• According to CBS News: In both cases in Texas and Connecticut found Jones and Infowars' parent company liable for damages without a trial last year, as a consequence for what she called his repeated failures to turn over many financial documents and other records to the plaintiffs. After the unusual "default" ruling, the jury was tasked only with deciding on the amount of compensatory damages and whether punitive damages were warranted. How guilty (How much should he pay) they claimed he gave them no information to prove he was innocent after he gave them 4 years of transcripts showing that he never presented anything as fact that he had made up. (Alex has verified all of that except the entire premise that he failed to turn over the documents, he gave them 4 years’ worth of documents to look over, remember, you are innocent until proven guilty, the burden of discovery is on them)

• They brought in financial advisers that refused to look at his books and said he was worth $270 million dollars based on past sales of products that he was simply a sponsor for. Alex Jones doesn’t produce any of the products he sells, just like Joe Rogan doesn’t produce Athletic Greens. Another company produces a product, and you advertise, and you get a cut. Alex Jones had products that he put a stamp of approval on, and he would get a cut, not the gross. They based this number off of his gross. Now, even if their numbers were true, and of course they’re not, just like Mar-a-Lago is not worth $18 million, to say that he’s made 270 million and then to say he should give up $1.5 billion is a crazy assessment. Even if what he did was wrong, it was maybe a dozen days shows, that didn’t make or break the overall body of work that Infowars did in 30 years. Infowars has nearly been around longer than I have.

• A judgement of $1.5 Billion was reached, all states combined.

• During the lawsuit, one of those paid out was an FBI agent that didn’t even lose anyone in the massacre, and he was given a judgement for $95 Million. He received one call at his office asking if he was really an FBI agent.

• Now, neither Alex nor Infowars is Google, they are not Purdue Pharma, so he did what anyone facing a judgement equal to literally 1.5 million times his net worth would do, he files for chapter 11 bankruptcy. He gets this response in the media, “Like every other cowardly move Alex Jones has made, this bankruptcy will not work,” said Chris Mattei, an attorney representing Sandy Hook families. “The American judicial system will hold Alex Jones accountable, and we will never stop working to enforce the jury’s verdict.” Not sure what else the guy was supposed to do but they weren’t happy with that.

• Alex files for appeal.

• Alex Jones is ordered to liquidate his assets.

• Of course, the assets do not add up to the $1.5 billion dollars’ worth, the lawyers representing the “Sandy Hook Families” then try to seize control of his social media accounts. This is where it starts to become obvious that this is not the call of grieving families, this is a call to remove Alex Jones from ever speaking again. This is unprecedented ground, consider the Dominion Lawsuit. Which was settled for $7 million. They didn’t also ask for the Fox News accounts. Nicholas Sandmann didn’t ask for the CNN accounts. Who do these fucking people think they are?

• Our courts came through on this one and the judge that presided over this said, “No. You cannot take the man’s name, you fucking pigs!” (Sic)

• It was decided by the courts that Infowars, Free Speech Systems (Banned.video, InfoWarsStore.com, Infowars.com) and the Infowars Studio in Austin would be sold at auction by court order. (remember that Alex Jones, awaiting appeal, has continued his daily show, reporting on all mishaps, like normal, planning his move to a new studio with a different owner, not himself)

• May 31st, 2024, A U.S. Trustee for the Federal Government sends private security with a ‘court order’ to shut down the show mid-broadcast. The show is ‘Officially’ off the air.

• Two weeks later, they get an emergency hearing with a judge, that judge fires the U.S. Trustee and his boss, who is a Chief Risk Officer (CRO) oversees the Enterprise Audit Management (EAM), because he had no court order or authority to shutdown anything, and Infowars is back!

• Judge then appoints a new U.S. Trustee to the case, named Chris Murray.

• Chris Murray tells Alex that they are having a public auction, which leads one to think anyone in the public could place a bid.

• He tries to put up the name Alex Jones for sale at the auction, they have a hearing, it was decided that isn’t allowed.

• Chris Murray offers to take that off the auction.

• He doesn’t.

• The auction is scheduled anyways it’s reported far and wide that the bid deadline will be on November 8th @ 2:00pm.

  

• Although I found lots of reporting saying the auction was on Monday, November 11th (the corporate media sucks).

  Wednesday, Nov. 13th, @ 10:30AM (Prevailing Central Time), the IP Assets Auction is scheduled.

  

• The “auction” took place. The bids went like this, Onion bid $1,000,000, Home Team bid $1,200,000. Due to the auction not going as planned, instead of a counterbid, like auctions normally go, “after receiving the initial bids, the Trustee and Tranzon decided to scrap the live auction and conduct a secret final and best bid process without court approval and contrary to the Sale Order”.

  

• Late in the evening early reports started surfacing that Infowars—as the ultimate “Onion” being Onion joke—had placed the winning bid in the auction and were publicly planning to turn Infowars into an actual fake news site that would operate separately from The Onion newspaper/website.

• By the next morning however, the corruption in this illegal auction starts rising to the surface. Alex had been yelling at the top of his lungs for months that this auction and everything surrounding it was not right, but Alex, well he says this about everything and yes, he’s been right a whole fucking lot and he was right in this case too.

Alex’s attorney’s and Elon Musk steps in, the judge is filled in on what just happened, and he orders everything back in possession of Alex Jones, he didn’t authorize the auction, the auction has to be agreed to by both parties, it is supposed to be a public auction where the highest bidder wins, this was reconstructed behind the scenes into a private sell, which is against court order. The judge overturns the sell until everyone agrees, they have a hearing, and both parties + the judge agrees with the rules of the engagement, and he gives the court order to proceed.

It’s now Monday the 18th, Alex has released the documents of the filing, I’ll post a link of them in (HERE) and some terminology from the documents if you are interested in reading them.

• Global Tetrahedron or Connecticut Families is The Onion—You’ll see both names referenced back and forth throughout the documents, sometimes in the same sentence— when you see them, same people. When you see First United American Companies—mostly referenced as FUAC—they are the friends of Infowars trying to buy the place to keep Infowars on the air.

  **Tranzon— is a real estate auction company that they used to set up the auction.

  **The US Trustee in this case is Chris Murray, he is assigned to the case to oversee the bankruptcy, they do this in big cases with a lot of moving parts.

  **FSS—Free Speech Systems/Assets, they mean the same thing, FSS is the LLC attached to Infowars so when they refer to FSS or Assets they mean Infowars.

  **Anytime the term Sale Order is used, think ‘court order’, this whole debacle is about the Sale Order being altered without the judge’s approval, it’s the court order.

This could be the story of any one of us. Or all of us. Totalitarianism happens, one tiny step at a time.

Despite how you might feel about him, the attempted annihilation of Infowars and Alex Jones could very well be the first stone thrown in the battle against free speech that's coming for all of us, it’s already here, like it or not, we’re in the fight. If we don't stand with him, who's gonna stand with us? Thank you for reading.

Editor-in-Chief

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Joe Rogan, who I love, still repeats a lot of the lies that you came on his platform spinning. Most, probably not all, but we are absolutely sure that most of the accounts that have been accused by you and your cohorts like the Global Engagement Center, GEC, were found by internal documents at twitter, and the internal documents showed that Twitter’s Trust and Safety Dept. pre-Musk ownership, had looked into these accounts and found that every account they looked into turned out to be normal American people, so that’s public now. Maybe it’s time for you to switch industries, again.

So, the fact that no defendant named in this case said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s name, could be true, I should know this, but it’s irrelevant truly because of the nature of the case. People who work for them slandered him as a fringe epidemiologist because he was going against the consensus on lockdowns, and calling for focused protection, that’s what the Great Barrington Declaration was. Twitter was paid $3.4 million that we know of, for their work hunting down and censoring these huge lists of people, but on the other side being harassed by Democratic Senators and public health officials in the Biden Admin demanding to know why certain posts that they wanted down and they wouldn’t take it down, at the same time that there was talks being had in private and in the House/Congress about stripping platforms of their section 230 liability, which makes the platform immune to what’s being said on the platform, if they don’t start playing ball with this “whole-of-society” approach, and stop allowing this “mis/dis/mal” information to stay on their platform, they are going to take it away as a platform. These threats led to Dr, Jay Bhattacharya being, literally the word they used, Blacklisted, probably on all the platforms but definitely on Twitter.

Just one more thing, the realization I finally came to after reading, literally, everything that has come out with this Censorship-Industrial Complex, in the last 3 years, trying to wrap my head around it and I get it now. It’s actually really simple, and really obvious. These are the same type of know-it-all’s that work at think tanks, and write Op-Ed’s on the research from the think tanks that enacted the war policy that took us to Iraq in 2003, it’s the same reason that hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid to the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s homelessness section, and other big cities too, to fix homelessness and nothing has gotten fixed, they need homelessness to continue or they don’t have a job. What do you think happens to the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) if there’s no more Digital Hate. The same thing that happens to Renee Diresta’s outfit if people are not indoctrinated with this, ahhhhh! MISS! DISS! MALINFORMATION! IT’S EVERYWHERE AND COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!

Well, what do we do?!

Just fund my “observatory”, do it through a company like CISA so it seems we’re dealing with “Cyber Security” or even better, how about this, “Infrastructure Security” because the “most important infrastructure is your mind!”

In the meantime, she bounces around from show to show, appearing on podcasts, spreading her own “disinformation” in a confident, compelling, and interesting way—like the boys at the agency taught her—such as a fact that, God love him, Joe Rogan keeps repeating from this she-devil, “19 out of 20 of the biggest Christian sites on Facebook are actually Russian Troll farms.” Boy, I wish I knew who the fuck they are, which 20? Are they still there?

Matt Taibbi contacted all of the—or as many as he could—accounts that were accused of being Russian bots/trolls by the Global Engagement Center, or GEC, and they turned out to be just regular Americans and didn’t know shit about Russia. And the Trump-1st term years running straight into the COVID years it was the perfect time for these Disinfo-Hustlers and Well-Spoken Charlatans—like Diresta—to flourish and she did, and we found out. Now, they cut funding of the Stanford Internet Observatory, Renee’s most recent operation, but don’t you worry. It’ll be back, under a different name, but with her name closely associated with everything they do. So, keep your eyes peeled.

And in case Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Of THE ILLUSION OF CONSENSUS w/ Rav Arora and Jay Bhattacharya, excellent publication, if you don’t know, get familiar) is to gracious of a man to say this, I am not, FUCK YOU RENEE DIRESTA, AND THE WHITE HORSE YOU ROAD IN ON, FUCK YOU BOTH!

Renee DiResta

There’s no evidence that any government defendant in this case (Murthy v Missouri) ever mentioned Jay Bhattacharya’s name, and the case was rightly tossed by SCOTUS for standing. (“Won” was a bit premature.) But definitely do go read it, since it’s a representative account of what forum-shopping can deliver before judges concerned about …

Wanted to get this down here too in case I get blocked, in this post, I was responding to ’s attack on :

And she was responding to saying this:

Regarding the wonderful idea of him being appointed the head of NIH, which is an amazingly exhilarating idea, my fingers are crossed. Not sure what I’d do if all of a sudden, the institution I’ve grown to hate starts killing it! And here’s the essay from Dr. at

The Free Press

The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists. We Fought Back—and Won.

When I was four, my mother took her first flight and first trip out of her native India to the U.S. with me and my younger brother in tow. We were going to me…

Read more

3 years ago · 1881 likes · 745 comments · Jay Bhattacharya

UPDATE: RENEE DIRESTA FOLLOWED ME… AND THEN BLOCKED ME :-)

What does that mean…. She definitely read it, lol.

So, I’m working on my next piece, hopefully out tomorrow. I see I have a notification, so I click, and I see this:

If you don’t know, if you ever see “1 user” instead of their name it’s because you got blocked and I’m like damn, who’d I get blocked by, I mean I said it earlier in Notes that I put this here just in case I get blocked, I don’t wanna lose the post, I’m kinda proud of it. Well, I wouldn’t lose the writing, but I would lose what I was responding to, so that is here. I worked on it all morning, but I kinda didn’t believe the Queen of the Censors would read it. So, I scrolled down in Notifications and see what made see her spineless post about Dr. , it was one of those “Renee Diresta posted their first note”, so I looked back to see where that notification was and see this:

And this, look at what happens when I try to subscribe:

This is the part that I didn’t consider. Maybe I shouldn’t have messaged this directly to her because now I can’t see what crazy shit she is writing. Guess I’ll have to make another account, simply for reading Substack’s of people who can’t handle words and under any pressure, whatsoever, block you and run back to their echo chambers, and tell everyone, How the hateful rhetoric and disinformation is REAL BAD right now! We’ve got to STOP these people from saying SO MANY WORDS! Screw you, if you can’t engage with words that are challenging then you have NO RIGHT to make a value judgement on the words God gifted me to be allowed to say. My freedom of speech is now up for discussion, no matter how much “disinformation”, “misinformation”, “mal-information” (whatever the fuck that is!), or “hate”, there is anywhere. You will not turn America into Germany, a censorious regime so regretful of their past that they censor anything they deem “unsafe” or “problematic”, this is America, we’re probably the worst censors anywhere but at least it’s still illegal and our people haven’t “drank the fucking kool-aid.”

Enough said. Thank you for reading.

This is Editor-in-Chief of . Have a great November evening.

In 2021, Jigsaw posted an article on Medium embracing “psychological inoculation” as an essential new technique to fight online extremism. Working with American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research Innovation Lab (PERIL), Google’s masters of mind-manipulation announced they had conducted research into the effects of “pre-bunking.” 

These included basic warnings to users that the content they are about to consume contains misinformation, but also the more advanced “inoculation” technique described by Van der Linden, of presenting users with a straw-manned version of a disfavored argument. 

As outlined in the diagram below, produced by Jigsaw, the method works by priming users to stay on their guard against manipulation, and to associate “extremist” messages with a deliberately-weakened “microdose” of the argument.

Dude, this is un-fucking-believable! Make sure to check out Mike Benz’s, Foundation for Freedom Online, if you haven’t, it’s a really excellent website if you are interested in finding out what’s really going on.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Just wondering, does this vaccine protect me from CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News, or do I have to get a booster?

So, where do we start….**Taps Pencil Against Desk in Deep Thought**

How about, here:

If Money is Free Speech, Are You Telling Me ‘Trolling’ Isn’t?

My headline if you don’t know is referring to “Citizens United V FEC”. This was the case that asserted the precedent that starting a Political Action Committee (PAC) that is funded by extremely wealthy donors and pays for all the heavy work, like ads, or venues, or attack commercials for a political candidate, and has led to the corruption of our electoral process and allows our elected candidates to be bribed by these corporations that fund the PAC. If that is protected by the 1st Amendment, then surely a meme is, right? What about a meme that trolls someone into thinking they voted by texting a number? It’s dick-Ish, but illegal?

Since the 2016 election, there has been literal prosecutions for what they called a “Voter Disinformation Campaign”. All under the guise of Election Misinformation! Check out this headline:

Social Media Influencer Charged with Election Interference Stemming from Voter Disinformation Campaign

Well, that sounds pretty bad, this was a Press Release from the Justice Department, after all.

“Defendant Unlawfully Used Social Media to Deprive Individuals of Their Right to Vote”

Jeez, he deprived them of their “Right to Vote” huh? Does that mean he held them hostage so they couldn’t leave their home? No.

Maybe they were in line to vote, and he ATTACKED them!? No.

Well, what did he do, this dirty rotten, vote-stealing, right-depriving scoundrel, umm, what’s his name, Douglas Mackie?!

“According to the allegations in the complaint, the defendant exploited a social media platform to infringe one the of most basic and sacred rights guaranteed by the Constitution: the right to vote,” said Nicholas L. McQuaid, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “This complaint underscores the department’s commitment to investigating and prosecuting those who would undermine citizens’ voting rights.”

Damn straight! So, what did he do?

“There is no place in public discourse for lies and misinformation to defraud citizens of their right to vote,” said Seth D. DuCharme, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. “With Mackey’s arrest, we serve notice that those who would subvert the democratic process in this manner cannot rely on the cloak of Internet anonymity to evade responsibility for their crimes. They will be investigated, caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

Ok, cool. So, what did he do?

“Protecting every American citizen’s right to cast a legitimate vote is a key to the success of our republic,” said William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office. “What Mackey allegedly did to interfere with this process – by soliciting voters to cast their ballots via text – amounted to nothing short of vote theft. It is illegal behavior and contributes to the erosion of the public’s trust in our electoral processes. He may have been a powerful social media influencer at the time, but a quick Internet search of his name today will reveal an entirely different story.”

Ummmm…. What?

The complaint alleges that in 2016, Mackey established an audience on Twitter with approximately 58,000 followers. A February 2016 analysis by the MIT Media Lab ranked Mackey as the 107th most important influencer of the then-upcoming Election, ranking his account above outlets and individuals such as NBC News (#114), Stephen Colbert (#119) and Newt Gingrich (#141).

Okay, so he’s popular.

As alleged in the complaint, between September 2016 and November 2016, in the lead up to the Nov. 8, 2016, U.S. Presidential Election, Mackey conspired with others to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages designed to encourage supporters of one of the presidential candidates (the “Candidate”) to “vote” via text message or social media, a legally invalid method of voting.

Wait, he trolled them? He was arrested for trolling??? What was this notorious image?

Ah, yes, the dirty rotten scoundrel posted a meme, a troll meme no doubt, but a meme, and some people fell for it, and their response to this is prosecution. What. The. Fuck. So, this is a perfect example of overkill. If ever your response to something as trivial as this, let’s say we accept your premise, that he “deprived them of their fundamental right to vote” once, just one time, and your response is to “deprive him of his right to vote”—because felons can’t vote—ever again, and not just that, you would infringe on his right, which is actually “one the of most basic and sacred rights guaranteed by the Constitution:” Freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom to not be held prisoner. You have lost the fucking plot! Maybe the response to this is teaching internet literacy? Obviously, not to the people who fell for this, they’ve now learned their lesson, but others so when they see shit like this, they won’t fucking fall for it, but you won’t, because they benefit off of the illiteracy if the populace. They pull all the same tricks, so they need us as gullible as possible.

It says in this press release, “What Mackey allegedly did to interfere with this process – by soliciting voters to cast their ballots via text – amounted to nothing short of vote theft. It is illegal behavior and contributes to the erosion of the public’s trust in our electoral processes…”

Subscribe now

No, Mr. Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s NY Field Office, Attacking free speech, infantilizing the people who pay your bills, intervening in their ability to live their life and make a mistake here and there, but doing it with the force of the state is not the “contributor” to the erosion of “Public Trust”, it’s the WHOLE thing! Like “The Coddling of the American Mind”, just at a dystopian statist level.

And this is only the beginning.

Share

Subscribe now

SOMEBODY, SHUT THEM UP! Stanford said, “I Will…”

In case this isn’t clear, I should say at the outset, whether you like it or not, the constitution protects your right to not tell the truth. I’m sorry, it’s just true. I do believe you shouldn’t lie, but the Government has zero say in what happens to you whether you lie or tell the truth. It’s a personal thing, lying, I’ve been a liar before. Been wrapped up in some doozie’s, and no matter how hard I tried those lies always came to surface, and I was never better off for telling those lies. And the person I lied to—this is the important part—they trusted me less, in some cases will never trust me again, and if they do, I had to work hard and long to earn that trust back, that’s the punishment for lying, but lies are not illegal, they’re protected speech.

If it was illegal to lie Rachel Maddow would be in Bedford Hills Correctional and Sean Hannity would be in fucking Alcatraz! Nobody has the right to silence you, especially not the Government, directly or by proxy. What we’re dealing with is by-proxy, and that is illegal.

“—where courts find that the government speech implicitly threatened retaliation, rather than simply exhorting or encouraging third parties to block speech, that's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court case on that is Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963), where a state commission threatened to prosecute stores that sold books that it viewed as pornography (including books that were actually protected by the First Amendment). And lower court cases have applied that even absent express threat of prosecution, for instance:

[1.] The mayor and a trustee of a New York town sent a letter to a newspaper demanding to learn more about who was involved in an article critical of local officials. Potentially unconstitutional, the Second Circuit held in Rattner v. Netburn (1991):

Though the district court characterized the Netburn letter as simply a plea to the Chamber to rid itself of political affiliations, that letter stated that the recent Gazette "raises significant questions and concerns about the objectivity and trust which we are looking for from our business friends," and it asked "[w]ho wrote" the questions and requested "a list of those members who supported the inclusion of this 'article'." Further, the record includes evidence that, when questioned about the letter, Netburn also stated that he had made a list of the local businesses at which he regularly shopped. The district court's ruling that the language of the Netburn letter, either standing alone or in all the circumstances, is not a veiled threat of boycott or reprisal does not view that language in the light most favorable to Rattner as the nonmoving party….

[And] a threat was perceived, and its impact was demonstrable. Several Chamber directors testified at their depositions that they viewed the letter as reminiscent of McCarthyism, threatening them with boycott or discriminatory enforcement of Village regulations if they permitted the publication of additional statements by Rattner; the Chamber member who had been "in charge of" the Gazette testified that following receipt of the Netburn letter, he had actually lost business and had been harassed by the Village.

Since the 2020 election, thanks to a lot of investigations from high places and low places there have been a lot uncovered about the censorship of political speech that happened during that time. It was something akin to Stalin’s Gulag in the 20th Century. They might be a little nicer at the outset, but their actions are vicious.

The Election Integrity Partnership, no matter how much they try to deny it as they do in a blog post on the website for University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, was created at the request of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which— if you’re not clear on this—was an agency that gained steam post-9/11 to protect us from terrorism domestically. Matt Taibbi documented this extensively in his piece Big Brother is Flagging You.

Racket News

Big Brother is Flagging You

“We just set up an election integrity partnership at the request of DHS/CISA,” wrote Graham Brookie of the Atlantic Council on July 31, 2020, according to a devastating new House report…

Read more

2 years ago · 909 likes · 241 comments · Matt Taibbi

He describes it as “State censorship in a ski mask” and I must agree.

As I mentioned above, they shamelessly denied being “founded, funded, or otherwise controlled by CISA”. The post is mostly useless bullshit, addressing claims that are just like, whatever, typical addressing-my-haters-type bullshit, then halfway down you get to the interesting part:

False impression: The EIP operated as a government cut-out, funneling censorship requests from federal agencies to platforms. This impression is built around falsely framing the following facts: the founders of the EIP consulted with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) office prior to our launch, CISA was a “partner” of the EIP, and the EIP alerted social media platforms to content EIP researchers analyzed and found to be in violation of the platforms’ stated policies. These are all true claims — and in fact, we reported them ourselves in the EIP’s March 2021 final report. But the false impression relies on the omission of other key facts. CISA did not found, fund, or otherwise control the EIP. CISA did not send content to the EIP to analyze, and the EIP did not flag content to social media platforms on behalf of CISA. 

If you don’t get what they’re talking about, it is The Long Fuse (Sounds like a code word for Chris Brown’s leaked dick-pic). The Long Fuse is a 292-page document that analyzes election Misinformation on the internet in the lead-up to the 2020 election. Its conclusion was that this misinformation led to the events that happened on January 6th. I believe reports like this, crushing the peoples trust and hiding the truth is what leads to unrest and events like January 6th, not to mention Agent Provocateurs that are placed in every riot. As there no doubt was on J6.

But, in the Long Fuse, they compile giant files of tweets and posts, like hundreds of thousands, that they flagged as misinformation to send to the platforms for them to “take-down”, or label, or ban, what isn’t said is they are doing this on behalf of the Government, at the threat of losing their Section 230 (c)(1) immunity. If you don’t know “Section 230(c)(1) prevents users and providers from being treated as the publisher of information provided by another content provider. This protects platforms from being held liable for defamatory content they passively host.” This is a necessity for any platform to survive without getting sued out of existence. Let’s say, X.com loses their 230(c)(1) immunity, that means they can be sued for every defamatory thing that is said on X, it’s the difference between being the publisher and the platform. I am a publisher on , Substack is my platform. They lose Section 230, then Dick Cheney could sue Substack for me calling him a Baby-Killer last week (if it wasn’t true).

So, something else to understand, CISA—the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure-Security Agency—is the cyber wing of the Department of Homeland Security. With that being said, you know—” CISA did not found, fund, or otherwise control EIP”—here’s what they uncovered in Matt’s piece (Linked above):

“We just set up an election integrity partnership at the request of DHS/CISA,” wrote Graham Brookie of the Atlantic Council on July 31, 2020, according to a devastating new House report:

Good God! Hard to say that one is mis- or dis- information. I guess that would be the infamous “mal- information”, which means true but inconvenient. Isn’t it inconvenient when you flat out lie and get caught in that lie? It is for me. I’ve learned the hard way to tell the truth first, it’s much easier and sounds much better from you than from secondary sources after the lie. Let’s continue:

Nominally run by Stanford University, the EIP is really government censorship in a ski mask, a creature of the Department of Homeland Security and its sub-agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Despite media protestations to the contrary, this has never really been in doubt. Stanford Internet Observatory Director Alex Stamos told the world EIP was formed because CISA “lacked both kinda the funding and the legal authorizations” to do its “necessary” work:

See, that’s how you do it! Wasn’t that easier. They hired y’all to help them censor election misinformation, why? Because, the DHS/CISA, being a government agency lacked the “legal authorization” to censor free speech. This was also supposed to be kept quiet because the Government is also not allowed to coerce or pay—or in this case both—anyone to censor free speech on their behalf. It is fucking illegal and unconstitutional.

Listen to what they said of this criticism in their Blog Post:

The criticism of the CIP’s research and team members is part of a larger effort that seeks to undermine work to understand and address online misinformation, disinformation and other forms of strategic manipulation. This effort aims to equate work to understand and address these challenges with “censorship” — functioning to cast doubt on research investigating mis- and disinformation and to undermine interventions that attempt to create more trustworthy information spaces. The rhetoric is similar to that employed in support of attempts to reframe the events of January 6, 2021, and to counter the findings of the U.S. House’s select committee that investigated what led to the violent attack that day on the U.S. Capitol. 

These motherfuckers are Shame-Less! It’s kind of interesting though, because the “U.S. House’s select committee” that they cited had a lot more to say…

Here’s thanks to the cited above, U.S. House’s Select Committee for Weaponization of the Federal Government and their excellent report, it’s 104-pages, it’s combined what we’ve learned from the Twitter Files, and Missouri v. Biden, sorry, it’s now Murthy v. Missouri, (but it’s against the Biden Administration) and what they—as a committee in Congress—have been able to subpoena themselves, on “THE WEAPONIZATION OF “DISINFORMATION” PSEUDO-EXPERTS AND BUREAUCRATS: HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PARTNERED WITH UNIVERSITIES TO CENSOR AMERICANS’ POLITICAL SPEECH (That’s it’s title)

The House’s Executive Summary (and more…)

Following the 2016 presidential election, a sensationalized narrative emerged that foreign “disinformation” affected the integrity of the election. These claims, fueled by left-wing election denialism about the legitimacy of President Trump’s victory, sparked a new focus on the role of social media platforms in spreading such information.1 “Disinformation” think tanks and “experts,” government task forces, and university centers were formed, all to study and combat the alleged rise in alleged mis- and disinformation—

—these efforts to combat so-called foreign influence and misinformation quickly mutated to include domestic—that is, American—speech.

It continues…

The First Amendment to the Constitution rightly limits the government’s role in monitoring and censoring Americans’ speech, but these disinformation researchers (often funded, at least in part, by taxpayer dollars) were not strictly bound by these constitutional guardrails. What the federal government could not do directly, it effectively outsourced to the newly emerging censorship-industrial complex.

Anyone who doesn’t follow or Michael Shellenberger, this is the nefarious Censorship-Industrial Complex, I constantly rail on about. Didn’t know this was where this piece was going, but I guess it is.

Enter the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), a consortium of “disinformation” academics led by Stanford University’s Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) that worked directly with the Department of Homeland Security and the Global Engagement Center, a multi-agency entity housed within the State Department, to monitor and censor Americans’ online speech in advance of the 2020 presidential election. Created in the summer of 2020 “at the request” of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA),3 the EIP provided a way for the federal government to launder its censorship activities in hopes of bypassing both the First Amendment and public scrutiny.

This interim staff report details the federal government’s heavy-handed involvement in the creation and operation of the EIP, which facilitated the censorship of Americans’ political speech in the weeks and months leading up to the 2020 election. This report also publicly reveals for the first time secret “misinformation” reports from the EIP’s centralized reporting system, previously accessible only to select parties, including federal agencies, universities, and Big Tech. The Committee and Select Subcommittee obtained these nonpublic reports from Stanford University only under the threat of contempt of Congress. These reports of alleged mis- and disinformation were used to censor Americans engaged in core political speech in the lead up to the 2020 election.

As this new information reveals, and this report outlines, the federal government and universities pressured social media companies to censor true information, jokes, and political opinions. This pressure was largely directed in a way that benefitted one side of the political aisle: true information posted by Republicans and conservatives was labeled as “misinformation” while false information posted by Democrats and liberals was largely unreported and untouched by the censors.

I just want to say, that these are shapeshifters. I know I’ve been using that term a lot in my last few articles but, what are you to call an entity that goes out of business in one name (Stanford Internet Observatory), when shit gets hot and opens up shop under another name (Stanford Cyber Policy Center). Because Renee DiResta, Queen of the Deep State, has gone nowhere, her name is attached to everything I click, on this Cyber Policy Center Website. It’s early and with the have already uncovered some of their shenanigans as I’ll get into later in this piece, so what kinda shit will be uncovered by 2028?! Back to the report:

The EIP’s operation was straightforward: “external stakeholders,” including federal agencies and organizations funded by the federal government, submitted misinformation reports directly to the EIP. The EIP’s misinformation “analysts” next scoured the internet for additional examples for censorship. If the submitted report flagged a Facebook post, for example, the EIP analysts searched for similar content on Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, and other major social media platforms. Once all of the offending links were compiled, the EIP sent the most significant ones directly to Big Tech with specific recommendations on how the social media platforms should censor the posts, such as reducing the posts’ “discoverability,” “suspending [an account’s] ability to continue tweeting for 12 hours,” “monitoring if any of the tagged influencer accounts retweet” a particular user, and, of course, removing thousands of Americans’ posts.

Regardless of what they’ll admit they sent a file compiled with 2.2 million posts from hundreds of thousands of Americans with every viewpoint imaginable, and as was admitted in a Congressional Hearing as somewhat of a mitigating factor, Jamie Raskin said, “Only 60% received any form of punishment”, to this Matt Taibbi replied, “Does the first Amendment only cover 60% of speech?”

Just saying, all of this from the Report, is just the first 5 pages.

Here CISA affirms that they don’t seek the ability to remove or edit any information made available on social media platforms, but they also state that it may be shared with law enforcement or intelligence agencies and no fucking telling what they’ll do with it! Don’t that just make you feel all warm inside!

Here’s a page on another tool for reporting election misinformation courtesy of the DHS/CISA:

Oh, and remember when tried to get sent to prison for contempt of Congress because he mixed up CIS and CISA and Mehdi asserted that this mattered because CIS was a non-profit, not a censorship mechanism of the government like CISA, here’s all three of them working together, CIS, CISA, and EIP:

If you missed this here’s that interview:

It was horrific if you are a fan of Matt’s reporting and know the story.

I’m gonna move on from that report for now but I have so much more to write about it, but not enough time, SOON.

Here’s what was asserted in The Long Fuse Report, it was basically their conclusion, and blame-game of what evil free speech led to, page 233 of this Long Fuse, it says:

Doing nothing is not an option. A government by and for the people depends on the people coming together around trustworthy information in order to make informed decisions—including around electing leaders. There is no doubt of the causal impact mis- and disinformation about the 2020 US elections played in the violent insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Maybe it did, but you can’t take that choice away from us.

The Long Fuse was 292-pages of shaming platforms for not enough censorship! It’s fucking ridiculous. Maybe one day I’ll write about it extensively, hopefully not, has done really excellent reporting on this. I’ll leave it right here for you to check it out any time.

I want to talk about what makes this so nefarious to me. Not just the government censorship, we all know that’s bad, but these think tank/research labs, that aren’t attached to any kind of STEM course of any kind. In order for these places to exist, they must make up reasons to exist. This report was done by the Atlantic Council, Graphika, The Stanford Internet Observatory (now Stanford Cyber Policy), etc. This is the new industrial complex! Wait, no it’s not; I think I’m just now totally wrapping my mind around this, I hope whoever is reading this is following me. This is the censorship-industrial complex. Of course it’s CISA and DHS and FBI, but more than that it’s these think tanks, and research labs, and just like American Enterprise Institute needs war, and the Department of Health and Human services needs homelessness, the Harris-Walz Administration needs her to win, and Trump-Vance needs him, the NHS needs disease, and the EPA need pollution, Planned Parenthood needs abortion, these people need “hate speech”, they need election misinformation, just like a doctor needs sick people the Censorship-Industrial Complex needs speech, that needs censoring, without these motherfuckers are on their tail, out of business! These people need censorship to exist. It’s the reason that Renee DiResta goes from podcast to podcast, confidently feeding us this bullshit, fearmongering about Russian troll farms. As recently as this week Joe Rogan, who I love, still repeats propaganda that she fed him 5 years ago, “19 (or 17 I don’t remember) out of 20 top Christian accounts on Facebook are Russian troll farms”, the same type of shit that the GEC said, that was debunked from every level, claiming regular Americans accounts were Russian trolls, it’s infuriating but she needs this to stay in business. This was created as an excuse to destroy freedom of speech. By the way, every western country has a version of this, like Matt Taibbi said at Rescue the Republic, “The end game is not controlling speech. They’re already doing that. The endgame is getting us to forget we ever had anything to say.”

Which by the way, everything I’m saying here Matt has already said 5 times! He’s a fucking National treasure, we’ve got to protect that guy at all costs.

This video by the “esteemed” Atlantic Council, opened with these words:

“The director of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and this event is hosted by the Election Integrity Partnership which is a coalition of top-tier research institutions that worked together throughout the 2020 US Elections to detect and mitigate election-related mis- and disinformation the partnership or EIP comprised of Stanford Internet Observatory, Graphika, The University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public and the DFR Lab and served as this independent body that worked together with nearly everybody involved in election integrity, on this collective challenge and that includes election officials, state, federal, local government officials, large, and small social media platforms, media, social/civil society organizations, and the wider research community in general”

This was basically a plan to enact policy for censorship. It was completely funded by the Federal Government, to expose “problematic citizens” who need to be censored, who need to be silenced. They call it a “Whole-of-Society” Problem that calls for a “Whole-of-Society” Approach. By the way, Alex Stamos and Kate Starbird, in the above video are the lead censors just like Renee DiResta.

The very best person to listen to on this is Mike Benz, that dude has done the research on everything. I can only hope I can get my point across as well as him. Please take 10 minutes to watch the following video if you care about freedom of speech in the Western world, it’s directly related to this subject:

What just took me 1500 words to explain, he ran through in 13 minutes in front of an audience.

So, now it’s 4-years-later, in time, as it did before, what they have planned for this election, and how they’ll use it to their advantage, we will see, but we do know what’s been exposed very recently. The first I had seen of it was a post from Tucker Carlson, remember this part at 7:25 in the Mike Benz video above he talks about this:

I just want to note here just a few things quickly, which is that this USA primer from 2021, mentions 31 times in 91 Pages how to cut financial support, to cut off Advertiser Revenue, to news media organizations, and to put financial pressure on the tech Platforms in order to kill mis- & disinformation. This is something I really want to stress…

Now a week before the 2024 election we see this:

It’s important to understand that Google—maybe because they were missing money or maybe because they seen the error in their ways—passed a policy last year, a principled policy, where they decided to stop censoring posts denying the 2020 election, here’s what they said:

We first instituted a provision of our elections misinformation policy focused on the integrity of past US Presidential elections in December 2020, once the states’ safe harbor date for certification had passed. Two years, tens of thousands of video removals, and one election cycle later, we recognized it was time to reevaluate the effects of this policy in today's changed landscape. In the current environment, we find that while removing this content does curb some misinformation, it could also have the unintended effect of curtailing political speech without meaningfully reducing the risk of violence or other real-world harm. With that in mind, and with 2024 campaigns well underway, we will stop removing content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections. This goes into effect today, Friday, June 2. As with any update to our policies, we carefully deliberated this change.

Okay, that’s a solid position. Although they already censored “tens of thousands of videos”, it’s like condemning the Iraq war in 2007. At least they did it. Obviously, some people don’t like that, hence the Tucker Carlson text. In case you don’t believe anything, Tucker says, consider this:

In case you don’t know, Ben and Tucker do not like each other. They might both be Republicans, but due to Tucker’s isolationism and Ben’s neoconservatism, they are not friends. So, this isn’t a collaboration.

It’s very obvious what’s going on here. The New York Times is being used by one of these deplatforming entities to push Google back to their original position of censoring Election Misinformation. maybe even leading to a prosecution like with Mr. Mackie. That’s why they want to know about the YouTube Partner Program. Oh, and Tucker got this one today, I think it could go down in history, especially if it makes it into the piece:

So, what became of the first two text messages?

So, by the way, the Washington Post just published the identical twin to this piece 26 minutes ago from the time I pulled this up but, the NYT came first, and I am subscribed to the NYT. I can only justify paying for one “propagandists” at a time. So, New York Times it is!

If you’d like to read this yourself, click here for an Un paywalled Version

The first line they jump right to the point, Mr. Nico Grant doesn’t waste no time:

In June 2023, YouTube decided to stop fighting the most persistent strain of election misinformation in the United States: the falsehood that President Biden stole the 2020 election from Donald J. Trump.

Just like that, your bias is clear. Them dummies at YouTube—the largest video platform in history—are ruining everything!!!

Not because they’re hosting something nefarious or evil on their platform like child porn, or ISIS Propaganda videos. The problem is election misinformation.

The problem isn’t that they are suppressing free speech, the problem is too much free speech.

During four tumultuous months of this year’s presidential campaign, researchers from Media Matters for America, a group that monitors information from conservative sources, examined the consequences of YouTube’s about-face.

While Media Matters is a progressive organization that regularly criticizes conservatives, reporters and academics frequently cite it as a source on YouTube misinformation because it devotes significant resources to tracking the vast platform.

Media Matters, the Queens of censorship. Useful idiots for the Deep State, their entire goal as an organization is deplatforming people, just like them, that have different views then them. The people who they try to destroy are just like the people at Media Matters, the difference is they don’t want to silence Media Matters for their point of view. Media Matters does. Maybe we’ll find out down the road that these people are funded by CISA too, which is funded by the Federal Government, just as we found out the Election Integrity Partnership was funded by CISA. Remember, CISA is the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, and they justify this with the premise that the American mind is infrastructure.

The New York Times independently verified the research, examining all of the videos identified by Media Matters and determining whether YouTube placed ads or fact-check labels on them

So, in this article, it’s the same old bullshit we’ve been used to for years. It’s not like everyone in the world hasn’t heard all this tired shit. These people didn’t do anything new.

A YouTube spokeswoman said that the company reviewed eight videos, identified by The Times, and that those did not violate its community guidelines.

“The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season,” she said in a statement.

“Most” of the 30 tracked channels are “ineligible for advertising,” and some had previously violated the company’s content policies, the spokeswoman added. “This report demonstrates our consistent approach to enforcing our policies.”

YouTube said it removes videos that mislead voters on how to vote, encourage election interference or make violent threats.

According to this MMA/NYT collaboration, they monitored 286 videos with election misinformation. This is the Partisan/Corporate Press version, I think they’re the same thing. & did a piece on this showing how the Center for Countering Digital Hate, CCDH teamed with the Washington Post on their hack job on the same subject, the same way that Media Matters of America, MMA teamed with the NYT for this piece. They’d swap back and forth like middle-aged swingers with a meth addiction, MMA/POST to CCDH/POST to NYT/MMA to MMA/CCDH whenever convenient to fill their needs.

Racket News

Save Democracy From Informed Voters: Vote Censorship!

Nico Grant of the New York Times rode shotgun with Media Matters of America to shoot down 30 conservative broadcasters as unfit to appear on YouTube…

Read more

a year ago · 913 likes · 291 comments · Matt Taibbi and Paul D. Thacker

and wrote:

As Grant’s story roared across social media, eliciting outrage from Democrats and Republicans alike, a trio of Washington Post reporters published a similar piece: “Elon Musk says X users fight falsehoods. The falsehoods are winning.” Instead of a Media Matters report, the Post worked off new “analysis” by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, the Labour-connected advocacy group featured last week in Racket and The Disinformation Chronicle.

Musk created “Community Notes” on X/Twitter as a crowdsourced alternative to censorship, but CCDH was not happy with its results:

X is poised to play a prominent role in the U.S. presidential election, a race in which Musk is a major backer of Republican nominee Donald Trump and spreading unfounded claims of voter fraud — most of which go unchallenged by his fact-checking program… The CCDH’s analysis… tracked how Community Notes responded to 283 posts that contained election claims identified as false or misleading by independent fact-checking organizations.

CCDH’s annual priority this year is “Kill Musk’s Twitter” through “Advertising focus” to drive away X’s corporate advertising revenue, the chief weapon being shrieking reports claiming “hate” proliferates on the platform. This now-exposed contempt for Musk and free speech was evident in the Post conclusions:

The Times/MMA “studied” 286 videos, while the Post/CCDH analyzed 283 Notes. Yet each outlet used a format so common in the “anti-disinformation” era, it now reads more like spam or clip-art than journalism. A DNC-aligned group produces a “report” documenting a sciencey-sounding quantity of “misinformation” incidents, then passes the scary number to a politically willing mainstream news outlet, which trumpets the new “facts” while publicly and privately pressuring platforms to remove offending material. Welcome to the new “accountability journalism.”

The problem with the Times piece is it defines “false claims” and “election misinformation” so broadly that legitimate questions or analyses and even jokes get wrapped in with far-out conspiracy tales. The MMA report denounced content that could “undermine confidence in the 2024 election results even before any votes were cast,” which apparently didn’t include its own headline, “YouTube let right-wing figures undermine the 2024 election results even before any votes were cast.”

Carlson made it for a clearly sarcastic crack: “I don’t think we’re allowed to talk about voter fraud on YouTube, which tells you that it’s real.” Shapiro made it for saying opposition to a Voter ID proposal suggests Democrats were fine with not showing ID, “which suggests they are fine with the possibility of voter fraud.”

Tim Pool was approached by Grant and mentioned in the Times piece seemingly as a way to get in a line about his work for Tenet media, through which Russia Today “allegedly funneled… money.” Neither the Times report nor the MMA version cited an instance of election misinformation by Pool, however. “The New York Times piece was remarkably tame,” Pool said. “There was nothing substantive in it.”

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch made the list of 286 bad videos by referring to criminal indictments of Trump and saying that if he loses, “people are rightly going to say, well, they had their thumb on the scale, so it’s no surprise.” Again, you can disagree, but is that an issue of fact? Asked if the purpose of the piece was to get him removed from YouTube, Fitton said “probably,” and noted the Post had already sent him queries about yet another article seemingly calling for censorship of podcasts.

Even comedian Greg Gutfeld somehow made the list for saying Democrats would win with “votes, legal or illegal,” though there’s “very little evidence on that, but that hasn’t stopped me before.” This is a self-owning joke and could be interpreted almost as the opposite of a charge of voter fraud. “It’s almost hilarious how desperate they are for content,” Gutfeld said. “They now report on jokes!”

It’s no accident Media Matters and CCDH worked this “censorship two-step” to America’s two papers of record at the same time. They have a history of tag-team action with these papers. In fact, some of the more embarrassing moments in our recently obtained CCDH papers involve the Times and Post.

And here we have 2 more entities that need censorship to survive. I’d love to hear that they were also taking cues from CISA, but I don’t think this is the case. If there was no more hate could there be a Center for Countering Digital Hate? And who out there projects more hate than Media Matters of America?! They are like a nuclear-powered hate machine! It only makes sense that these two are teamed up, by the way, what’s more hateful than Kill Musk’s Twitter! This has been a fun ride down Election Misinformation Lane, we’ve already learned so much and the election hasn’t even happened yet! Imagine what we’ll know by 2028, about the deviltry behind the scenes!

Remember, these people are cockroaches, they’ll always return, and where there’s one there’s a hundred. Never underestimate desperation, and these people are desperate, every expose that comes out about them another door shuts and they start to tremble, keep them trembling, that’s all I got. Have a great Election Day! Remember to vote your conscience! Whatever that means today! Thank you for reading!

, Editor-in-Chief,

*Correction. Julian is free. He was released this morning. June 24, 2024.

Recently, I said if Biden would let Julian Assange out I’d vote for him. I’m sure that had nothing to do with the news as of today. But if he does, dude, that will be so big! According to this Julian Assange receives plea deal for time served with a release later this week. I’ve received a few plea deals to get released in my life and every time it meant I was coming home. I hope this is legit. If it is I’m so very happy for him and his family. If you don’t know the story I’ve written about it a couple time which I’ll include in the following. Don’t have much else to say except I’m praying for him and his family that it works out as planned. New piece coming out tomorrow. Until then.

Jordan Lee, Editor-in-Chief, D.O.L.

Subscribe now

Share

Share

Julian Assange, in case you don’t know is the most prolific truth-teller on Earth, I don’t know how else to say it, no one has done more to expose war crimes and torture and the evils of the Military-Censorship-Surveillance-Industrial Complex, on every continent, worldwide, than Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, which is Julian Assange. Also, no one on Earth has been slammed by the “Deep State”, the ACTUAL Deep State, and been persecuted and prosecuted for a crime whose only victim is the authoritarian murderers who’d just as soon kill ya, then look at ya, who’d send your teenage son to be killed by a drone strike, to buy themselves an in ground pool, or a new patio. If you’re unaware of the case, I did my best to spell out the persecution in the piece below:

Julian went from Time Magazine cover, ‘Person of the Year’ to hated worldwide by every person/entity that is in love with war!

Julian has been fighting to appeal extradition to the US from the UK, and it has been an uphill battle, to say the least. Being an American, I feel like I would want to be extradited out of the UK to a United States prison, thinking the conditions would be better. I’ve been to prison here and although it wasn’t vacation, I lived, and I’m no tough guy, buuuuuuuut… It just so happens, the H.N.I.C.’s here(Head Neocons In Charge), have admitted out loud that they want, and have discussed, Fucking Assassinating him! Like what the fuck! Btw, we have a LOT of fucking nerve accusing Vladimir Putin of targeting political prisoners and journalists when it’s literally our favorite thing to do here in America. Okay, so he caught a fucking break on the extradition, but he’s still NOT out. The last time I got in trouble, when I got out, it changed me, but I was facing 30 years, and I considered my life to be O-V-E-R! Not that I’m on any tier near Julian, I was stealing gift cards, and deserved to be where I was. They are threatening this guy with TWO FUCKING CENTURIES!!!! For embarrassment, that’s it, nobody got killed, that they didn’t kill. And he told no lies, as is laid out in previous pieces, if he lied he would be free as a bird. They never go after liars, only the truth-tellers.

So, what I’m getting at is his time is ticking away, as all of our times are ticking away, they are torturing this guy with isolation, and torture is NOT a stretch, it’s been scientifically proven that long terms spent in isolation cause cognitive decline, and it’s showing. You know they love that, his actual crime is using his mind for good instead of evil, so what a better way for them to get back at him?

Even if someone doesn’t enter solitary with a mental health condition, it’s possible for them to develop a specific psychiatric syndrome due to the effects of isolation. Dr. Stuart Grassian, who first identified the syndrome, notes that it is characterized by a progressive inability to tolerate ordinary things, such as the sound of plumbing; hallucinations and illusions; severe panic attacks; difficulties with thinking, concentration, and memory; obsessive, sometimes harmful, thoughts that won’t go away; paranoia; problems with impulse control; and delirium.

And we wonder why the recidivism is so high today.

I should say, this story is good news, but it shouldn’t have been a fight. It’s a step towards freedom, or at least safety, until someone comes to there senses, I’m not sure what the next move is after he beats extradition. I hope there’s a plan.

I’ll say this right now, I’d vote for Joe Biden, or whoever is in there, if they pardoned Assange, I bet a lot of people who pay attention to this case, and believe in liberty and hate war, would. If they knew what was going on at ground floor, the Biden Administration might should consider that, I would vote for that old, authoritarian bastard, if he pardoned Julian Assange, and I know there’s more people out there like me. Maybe that would pull them out of the current mess, you know, Waging a proxy war with Russia/Supporting a genocide in Gaza, Otherwise, I’ll probably be hopping on the ‘whoever-it-is’ Independent ticket. I’m saying it right now, on the record, if they don’t, by they I mean, the Biden Administration, do something drastic to change the public opinion, especially the younger demo, Donald Trump is gonna win this go around, the violations of free speech, press freedom, and most of all, Waging war abroad-VERY broad, this will be another protest vote, but this time for the other side.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

The same cabal of warmongering pundits, foreign policy specialists and government officials, year after year, debacle after debacle, smugly dodge responsibility for the military fiascos they orchestrate. They are protean, shifting adroitly with the political winds, moving from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party and then back again, mutating from cold warriors to neocons to liberal interventionists. Pseudo-intellectuals, they exude a cloying Ivy League snobbery as they sell perpetual fear, perpetual war and a racist worldview, where the lesser breeds of the earth only understand violence. 

They are pimps of war, puppets of the Pentagon, a state within a state, and the defense contractors who lavishly fund their think tanks — Project for the New American Century, American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, Institute for the Study of War, the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institution. Like some mutant strain of an antibiotic-resistant bacteria, they cannot be vanquished. It does not matter how wrong they are, how absurd their theories, how many times they lie or denigrate other cultures and societies as uncivilized or how many murderous military interventions go bad. They are immovable props, the parasitic mandarins of power vomited up in the dying days of any empire, including ours, leaping from one self-defeating catastrophe to the next.

I spent 20 years as a foreign correspondent reporting on the suffering, misery and murderous rampages these shills for war engineered and funded. My first encounter with them was in Central America. Elliot Abrams — convicted of providing misleading testimony to Congress on the Iran-Contra Affair and later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush so he could return to government to sell us the Iraq war — and Robert Kagan, director of the State Department's public diplomacy office for Latin America — were propagandists for the brutal military regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, as well as the rapists and homicidal thugs who made up the rogue Contra forces fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, which they illegally funded. Their job was to discredit our reporting.

They, and their coterie of fellow war lovers, went on to push for the expansion of NATO in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, violating an agreement not to extend NATO beyond the borders of a unified Germany and recklessly antagonizing Russia. They were and are cheerleaders for the apartheid state of Israel, justifying its war crimes against Palestinians and myopically conflating Israel's interests with our own. They advocated for air strikes in Serbia, calling for the U.S. to "take out" Slobodan Milosevic. They were the authors of the policy to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. Robert Kagan and William Kristol, with their typical cluelessness, wrote in April 2002 that "the road that leads to real security and peace" is "the road that runs through Baghdad."

We saw how that worked out. That road led to the dissolution of Iraq, the destruction of its civilian infrastructure, including the obliteration of 18 of 20 electricity-generating plants and nearly all the water-pumping and sanitation systems during a 43-day period when 90,000 tons of bombs were rained down on the country, the rise of radical jihadist groups throughout the region, and failed states. The war in Iraq, along with the humiliating defeat in Afghanistan, shredded the illusion of U.S. military and global hegemony. It also inflicted on Iraqis, who had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, the widespread killing of civilians, the torture and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners, and the ascendancy of Iran as the preeminent power in the region. They continue to call for a war with Iran, with Fred Kagan stating that "there is nothing we can do short of attacking to force Iran to give up its nuclear weapons." They pushed for the overthrow of President Nicolás Maduro, after trying to do the same to Hugo Chávez, in Venezuela. They have targeted Daniel Ortega, their old nemesis in Nicaragua.

They embrace a purblind nationalism that prohibits them from seeing the world from any perspective other than their own. They know nothing about the machinery of war, its consequences or its inevitable blowback. They know nothing about the peoples and cultures they target for violent regeneration. They believe in their divine right to impose their "values" on others by force. Fiasco after fiasco. Now they are stoking a war with Russia.

"The nationalist is by definition an ignoramus," Yugoslav writer Danilo Kiš observed. "Nationalism is the line of least resistance, the easy way. The nationalist is untroubled, he knows or thinks he knows what his values are, his, that's to say national, that's to say the values of the nation he belongs to, ethical and political; he is not interested in others, they are no concern of his, hell — it's other people (other nations, another tribe). They don't even need investigating. The nationalist sees other people in his own images — as nationalists."

The Biden administration is filled with these ignoramuses, including Joe Biden. Victoria Nuland, the wife of Robert Kagan, serves as Biden's undersecretary of state for political affairs. Antony Blinken is secretary of state. Jake Sullivan is national security adviser. They come from this cabal of moral and intellectual trolls that includes Kimberly Kagan, the wife of Fred Kagan, who founded the Institute for the Study of War, William Kristol, Max Boot, John Podhoretz, Gary Schmitt, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Frum and others. Many were once staunch Republicans or, like Nuland, served in Republican and Democratic administrations. Nuland was the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. 

They are united by the demand for larger and larger defense budgets and an ever-expanding military. Julian Benda called these courtiers to power "the self-made barbarians of the intelligentsia."

We must Protect Chris Hedges At All Costs and Free Julian Assange! More on this soon.

Jordan Lee, editor-in-chief, Declaration of WarLiberty