Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
Privacy and security experts have been warning about Internet of Things (IoT) technology for many years and continue to do so (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Internet of Bodies (IoB) technology falls under the IoT umbrella and it is currently unregulated.
For those who aren’t familiar with what IoT entails, an excellent description has been provided on the Whatis5G.Info website:
The Internet of Things (IoT), as being marketed and sold to the public, is a vision of connecting every “thing” possible to the Internet – all machines, appliances, objects, devices, animals, insects and even our brains.
RAND was, and is, the essential establishment organization. Throughout its history, RAND has been at the heart of that interweaving of Pentagon concupiscence and financial rapacity that President Eisenhower aimed to call the military- industrial- legislative complex. RAND has literally reshaped the modern world—and very few know it.
With this understanding, there is much cause for alarm with the issuance of this new report.
What Is The Internet Of Bodies (IoB)?
RAND defines the IoB as “a growing industry of devices that monitor the human body, collect health and other personal information, and transmit that data over the Internet.”
In order to qualify as an IoB device, the technology must:
contain software or computing capabilities
be able to communicate with an Internet-connected device or network
An IoB device must also satisfy one or both of the following:
collect person-generated health or biometric data
be able to alter the human body’s function
The technology that Hollywood has presented over the years in dystopian sci-fi fantasies is now a reality.
In the very near future, the technocratic overlords of science, health, finance, and Big Tech desire humanity to go from wearable devices to devices embedded within our bodies.
How IoB Intersects With IoT
IoT devices such as smart meters, smart watches, virtual assistants, and self-driving cars connect directly to the Internet or through a local network.
As IoT devices become more commonplace, experts predict that acceptance of and desire for IoB devices will also increase. The RAND report predicts:
By 2025, there will be more than 41 billion active IoT devices, generating 2.5 quintillion bytes of data daily on environment, transportation, geolocation, diet, exercise, biometrics, social interactions, and everyday human lives. This explosion in IoT devices will result in further popularity of IoB devices.
IoB Products In Use Or Being Developed
Figure 1 from the RAND report shows just how invasive and pervasive IoB technology can become. By the time it is fully unleashed, no part of the human body will escape its interference. They even plan to have our toilets connected to the Internet where they will monitor our waste using BioBot technology to determine what we eat, what drugs we may take, and analyze our genetic material!
Here are just a few examples of the technology currently being developed:
Augmented reality contact lenses
Brain reading and writing devices
Clothing with sensors
Implantable microchips (RFID and NFC)
Mental and emotional sensors
Bluetooth connected diaper
Not even babies will be able to escape this nightmare where every bodily function is constantly tracked and monitored. The sad part is that many people will welcome these intrusive technologies because they’re convenient and timesaving. However, exchanging bodily sovereignty for convenience is never a fair transaction. It almost always serves to benefit those who desire more control over our lives.
Through adoption of technological advancement, humans are consenting to allow technocrats to dictate every facet of life. Soon doctors will be able to know if you are taking prescribed medication appropriately, and will have tools to report you if you aren’t. Digital pills will be used to record your medical compliance as the RAND report signals – Read full article
As noted in the article, IoB technology requires wireless (WiFi) radiation, 5G and other Electromagnetic Fields (aka “Electrosmog”) in order to perform. All of these sources are biologically harmful. So there’s that too.
An Austrian parliamentary member exposed the defectiveness of the government’s COVID-19 tests by demonstrating in the parliament how a glass of Coca Cola tested positive for COVID-19.
In footage from the meeting in Vienna Friday, FPO General Secretary Michael Schnedlitz brings a glass of Coca Cola to the podium, from which he proceeds to collect drops to use on an antigen rapid test being used on a mass scale.
After going to the lectern and starting his speech, the politician sprinkled few drops of cola on corona rapid test. Three minutes later the test showed a result: Coca Cola was COVID-19 positive.
After demonstrating a positive result, Schnedlitz goes on to slam the tests as a waste of taxpayer resources.
Mr. President, we are likely to have a problem now, we have a positive corona test in parliament, namely this cola triggered a positive corona test. I don’t know how to deal with it now!
With things like this you are throwing tens of millions of euros in tax money out of the window instead of providing real protection for old people’s and nursing homes, instead of investing money in our hospitals.
The corona mass tests are worthless! This was also shown by a simple experiment in parliament, in which a cola had a positive result! But this black-green government spends tens of millions in tax money on precisely these tests.”
As soon as they are ready for full commercial release, a new series of smartphone apps funded and created by Rockefeller and Clinton Foundations, among other nefarious players, will control every aspect of post-COVID life
According to reports, the non-profit trust Commons Project Foundation, part of the World Economic Forum, is set to release three different smartphone apps – CommonHealth, COVIDcheck, and CommonPass – that together will collect, store and monitor people’s health data in order to determine where they are allowed to travel, study, work and live.
The Commons Project website explains that, with support of the Rockefeller Foundation, new “platforms and services” will soon be introduced to tightly regulate life after COVID-19.
We also know that part of the plan is to implement the World Economic Forum’s ”Great Reset” agenda, which is essentially a transition to the New World Order under the guise of a plandemic.
CommonHealth, we are told, will collect and “manage” people’s health data in order to relay it to health services, organizations and even other smartphone apps.
This app exists as an alternative to Apple Health for the 73 percent of the global population that uses Android devices instead of Apple devices.
CommonHealth was developed in collaboration with the University of California San Francisco, Cornell Tech, and Sage Bionetworks, the app informational page explains.
COVIDcheck, another Commons Project app created in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Clinton Foundation and the World Medical Association, is similar to CommonHealth except it exists to create a “new normal” post-COVID for schools, universities, employers and public health agencies.
COVIDcheck will contain a series of questions that explain to users how to “check” if they have COVID-19, as well as what to do next in the event that they receive a positive test result.
And finally, CommonPass, which is already being tested out at Heathrow Airport in London, functions as a type of digital passport allowing travelers to present their health data to airport screeners.
CommonPass will contain users’ COVID-19 positive or negative status, as well as proof of vaccination once a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine is released.
Air travelers will presumably need CommonPass in order to travel, especially internationally, in a post-COVID world.
“The pass works by passengers taking a test at a certified lab before uploading it,” Great Game India reveals, further explaining that CommonPass can be used “to satisfy various governments’ different regulations” concerning the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).
“It generates a QR code that can be scanned by airline staff and border officials. However, it will require governments to trust coronavirus tests taken at foreign labs. Based on your CommonPass status you may or may not be allowed to travel.”
COVID-19 Is Exactly What The Rockefeller Foundation Proposed Under “Operation Lockstep” Back In 2010 All three apps are a direct manifestation of what the Rockefeller Foundation “predicted” back in 2010 as part of “Operation Lockstep.”
This program was described as a scenario-planning exercise for global elites to manipulate and influence public policies during an alleged pandemic – you know, much like the one the world currently faces.
In the Foundation’s “Scenarios for the Future of Technology” document, four scenario narratives are presented.
One of them is called “Lock Step,” and it details how governments should deal with a global pandemic.
This document was reportedly created as a type of “operation manual” for how to proceed with a “new normal” in the event that a global pandemic strikes the world.
If this sounds eerily familiar, that is because it was all planned to happen this way 10 years ago.
Ultimate Proof: Covid-19 Was Planned to Usher in the New World Order
Children’s Health Defense Director and renowned lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently spoke to a very large crowd in Berlin, Germany in what was a gathering of of tens of thousands of people who came together to create awareness and protest against what Kennedy referred to as Bill Gates’ “bio-security agenda, the rise of the authoritarian surveillance state and the Big Pharma sponsored coup d’etat against liberal democracy.”
According to Kennedy, and many others around the globe, “the pandemic is a crisis of convenience for the elite who are dictating these policies… Fifty years ago, my uncle John F. Kennedy came to this city.
“He came to this land, because Berlin was the frontline against global totalitarianism. And today again, Berlin is the frontline against global totalitarianism.”
We also published an article written by Kennedy a couple of years ago that also provides more about Gates’ relationship with big pharma.
It’s hard to really know how many people showed up, but judging by the pictures it seems like a lot were in attendance. Mainstream media completely ignored the gathering.
According to Kennedy,
“This was one of 40 sites scattered around Berlin where where some 1.5 million people gathered around separate stages to evade police harassment and peacefully protest the alarming global rise of Medical & Digital Totalitarianism.”
If mainstream media covered a gathering of one thousand, they could make it a big spectacle and make it seem as the “majority” feel a certain way.
When they don’t cover something that threatens their and their partners interests, which in this case is big pharma, they can make it seem like it never happened, no matter how big the gathering is.
Mainstream media can make it seem as if the majority is the minority, and the minority is the majority.
A recent Instagram post made by Kennedy expresses his feelings about the event, and the resistance the gatherings faced:
“Beneath the Siegesäule Monument where I spoke. This was one of 40 sites scattered around Berlin where where some 1.5 million people gathered around separate stages to evade police harassment and peacefully protest the alarming global rise of Medical & Digital Totalitarianism.
“As I said in my speech, the government strategy is to portray the protestors as right wing extremists or “Covid Deniers”(a euphemism, in the official narrative for Holocaust deniers) none of which is true.
“The government issued three proclamations declaring the protest illegal. Our Rapid Response team of lawyers successfully appealed each of these declarations in court.
“The Pharma-controlled main stream media blacked out all coverage the main event altogether-ignoring what were perhaps the largest crowds in German history. No main stream media covered this momentous gathering.
“The only media reports claimed only 38,000 people & showed clips of a staged incident where 100 riot police colluded in a false flag show with some 50 agents provocateurs in Nazi regalia near the Reichtag miles from our protest.
“The obsequious Pharmedia dutifully conflated that phony fascist Kabuki play with our peaceful democratic event to claim we were allied with violent far right extremists 6)World Futbol champion (1990)Thomas Bartholdi and his wife Britta Protest 7)German National Team Basketball Star Joshiko Saibou and Olympic long jump champion Alexandra Westore. 8)Organizer Attorney Marcus Haintz and program moderator Nana from Ghana. KP
Below is a brief clip of him speaking I found on YouTube:
Why This Is Important
The number of activists from all walks of life, from all professions, including thousands of doctors and scientists who have been questioning actions that have been and are being taken by governments around the world for a long time is quite large and continues to grow.
They also believe that the measures and actions being taken by governments worldwide represent a draconian totalitarian agenda that’s continuing to play out under the guise of goodwill. These are actions that are completely unnecessary, unscientific and even harmful according to them and many others.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal (source)
A couple of years ago, Kennedy explained the power big pharma has in the United States, let alone the world:
Those of you who have been involved in the past in the battle to protect our children from poorly made vaccines or toxic chemicals in our food or in our water know the power of these industries and how they’ve undermined every institution in our democracy that is supposed to protect little children from powerful, greedy corporations.
Even the pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined.
They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. (source)
The question is, why are so many people who share these opinions completely censored? Even when there are thousands of them, when it comes to covid the list of renowned doctors and scientists is quite long.
As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? – Edward Snowden (source)
I’ve written numerous articles expressing the feelings, opinions, research and data of many explaining why lockdown measures and more for covid seem quite ridiculous.
Here’s one of many that goes into the infection fatality rate, for example, the article linked above with regards to the more than 500 German doctors and scientist is another example. To read more of our coverage throughout this pandemic, you can click here.
Why is there a digital authoritarian Orwellian “fact-checker” going around the internet that is censoring information that’s clearly not false?
Why are they censoring information that doesn’t fit the narrative of the World Health Organization (WHO)?
Why are the leaked documents from Wikileaks showing the influence that Big Pharma has within the WHO completely ignored?
Why does mainstream media constantly use ridicule, character assassination and words like “conspiracy theory” instead of actually addressing and countering the points being made by so many doctors, scientists and activists? Why can’t we have these discussions openly and transparently?
What is going on here?
Our world is going through a massive shift in consciousness, and the COVID-19 pandemic has and is serving as a catalyst for more and more people to start questioning exactly what is going on here instead of simply believing what they are hearing and seeing on their television screens.
This questioning and critical inquiry results in a perception shift, and the world people once thought was becomes something completely different. Not everything is as we’ve been told and taught, and in order to change things for the better we have to be able to identify and see the problem.
This is exactly the process we are going through, and the more we ‘wake up’ the more effort there is from those who are threatened by our ‘awakening’ to silence and control us.
We are living in exciting times! It’s great to see an event like covid spark such a massive gathering of people who desire a better and more transparent world for all. We saw similar things after 9/11.
Situated at the top of the Palms Hotel in Las Vegas, the empathy Suite costs $ 100.000 per night and is reserved for elite guests. Its filled with creepy and disturbing art that hints to the possibly terrible things that happen in there. here’s a look at the most expensive hotel room in the world.
Take a second and picture in your mind the most expensive hotel room in the world. Did you picture pills, butterflies and medical waste everywhere? Probably not. Because you are probably not a psychopath. Well, the most expensive hotel room in the world is actually filled with pills, butterflies and medical waste. And dead animals. Because this place was clearly made for psychopaths.
The Empathy Suite of the Palms Hotel in Las Vegas combines colorful, kiddie designs with pills and opioids. It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to picture what this place was designed for. Here’s a top comment from a YouTube video touring the Empathy Suite.
Damien Hirst does the one-eye sign using a skull in Interview Magazine. That sums up everything you need to know about him.
Damien Hirst is reportedly the richest living artist in the UK with wealth estimated at £215 million. Throughout his career, Hirst was supported by extremely rich and powerful people such as Charles Saatchi, an Iraqi-British Jewish businessman who founded Saatchi & Saatchi, the world’s largest advertising agency in the 1980s.
Right from the start of his career, Hirst’s works revolved around the theme of death. One of his first “works of art” is a picture of him smiling next to a severed head. He soon became famous for a series of artworks in which dead animals (including sharks, sheep, and cows) are preserved—sometimes having been dissected—in formaldehyde.
Hirst often combines his morbid subjects with Christian themes to create rather blasphemous works of art.
So, the people at the Palms Hotel saw this stuff and said: “We need him to decorate our most sumptuous spaces right now!”.
For starters, they bought a 60-foot sculpture made by Hirst titled Demon With Bowl.
If you’re wondering where’s the head, it exposed somewhere else. Here it is
So what makes this hotel room so special and exclusive? What kind of “profile” does it cater to? Just look at the pics and it will become obvious.
The general theme of the suite is centered around pills and butterflies. They are everywhere, to the point that it is overwhelming. And, to regular readers of this site, this combination of symbols points strongly to a specific and horrific direction (which happens to be one of the occult elite’s secret obsessions): Monarch Programming.
The goal of Monarch programming (an offshoot of MKULTRA) is to create mind-controlled slaves through the use of trauma and heavy drugs. The main symbol used to identify this program is the Monarch butterfly. The room is all about drugs and butterflies. And, as they say, the devil is in the details.
Why is there a medicine cabinet in the main living area? Because it is actually a “work of art” by Damien Hirst titled Vegas.
Across from the dining room is a massive bar.
The bar contains all kinds of tubes, syringes, pill wrappers, and other items associated with surgeries and medical procedures. Is that the type of stuff you want to be looking at while taking a drink? What if you looked up?
On the other side of the bar are a massive balcony and a heated pool. The creepiness continues there.
Not unlike the rest of the suite, the multi-colored disks on the pillars give the area a pre-school, daycare kind of vibe.
Are you ready to visit the second floor? Just go up the butterfly stairs.
The bedrooms of the suite are in perfect continuation with the theme of the suite.
Another high-end amenity of the Empathy Suite is the “salt room” where one can partake in halotherapy. Surely, this place of relaxation is devoid of creepy symbolism? Wrong.
Even without knowledge of the twisted symbolism of the occult elite, the Empathy Suite sends off a disturbing vibe. The colors, the butterflies and the medical paraphernalia is reminiscent to the pediatrics section of a hospital. However, the generous seating areas (combined will all kinds of swings) just scream out “sex orgy”. The combination of the two = Epstein Island but in Las Vegas.
The fact that this suite is called “Empathy” is the cherry on the proverbial sundae. It is an ironic name. It is an example of the sick and twisted sense of “humor” of the elite. This place emits the exact opposite energy. In fact, it appears to be custom-made to disturb, traumatize and even terrify people who took drugs in there, and probably against their will.
Imagine young people who are drugged out of their minds and who are forced to dwell in that place. In that context, the most expensive hotel room in the world quickly becomes the stuff of nightmares.
Bad news alert: there are lawsuits and recalls on several cell phone models due to illegally high levels of radiation AND an investigation uncovered that government tracking software was installed in hundreds of mobile apps.
A government armed with AI could claim to know what its people truly want and what will really make them happy. At best it will use this to justify paternalism, at worst, totalitarianism.
Every hell starts with a promise of heaven. AI-led totalitarianism will be no different. Freedom will become obedience to the state. Only the irrational, spiteful or subversive could wish to chose their own path.
To prevent such a dystopia, we must not allow others to know more about ourselves than we do. We cannot allow a self-knowledge gap.
The All-Seeing A.I.
In 2019, the billionaire investor Peter Thiel claimed that AI was “literally communist”. He pointed out that AI allows a centralising power to monitor citizens and know more about them than they know about themselves. China, Thiel noted, has eagerly embraced AI.
We already know AI’s potential to support totalitarianism by providing an Orwellian system of surveillance and control. But AI also gives totalitarians a philosophical weapon. As long as we knew ourselves better than the government did, liberalism could keep aspiring totalitarians at bay.
But AI has changed the game. Big tech companies collect vast amounts of data on our behaviour. Machine-learning algorithms use this data to calculate not just what we will do, but who we are.
The accuracy of AI’s predictions will only improve. In the not-too-distant future, as the writer Yuval Noah Harari has suggested, AI may tell us who we are before we ourselves know.
These developments have seismic political implications. If governments can know us better than we can, a new justification opens up for intervening in our lives. They will tyrannise us in the name of our own good.
Negative freedom is “freedom from”. It is freedom from the interference of other people or government in your affairs. Negative freedom is no one else being able to restrain you, as long as you aren’t violating anyone else’s rights.
In contrast, positive freedom is “freedom to”. It is the freedom to be master of yourself, freedom to fulfil your true desires, freedom to live a rational life. Who wouldn’t want this?
But what if someone else says you aren’t acting in your “true interest”, although they know how you could. If you won’t listen, they may force you to be free – coercing you for your “own good”. This is one of the most dangerous ideas ever conceived. It killed tens of millions of people in Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China.
The Russian Communist leader, Lenin, is reported to have said that the capitalists would sell him the rope he would hang them with. Peter Thiel has argued that, in AI, capitalist tech firms of Silicon Valley have sold communism a tool that threatens to undermine democratic capitalist society. AI is Lenin’s rope.
Fighting For Ourselves
We can only prevent such a dystopia if no one is allowed to know us better than we know ourselves. We must never sentimentalise anyone who seeks such power over us as well-intentioned. Historically, this has only ever ended in calamity.
The problem is not AI improving our self-knowledge. The problem is a power disparity in what is known about us. Knowledge about us exclusively in someone else’s hands is power over us. But knowledge about us in our own hands is power for us.
The video presentation by the doctors has been deleted everywhere across Big Tech platforms in a desperate effort to make sure Americans don’t learn that we don’t have to keep suffering and dying while waiting for a vaccine that might be a failure anyway.
Yet the evil tech giants and media publishers have decided that Americans are not allowed to watch this video of doctors offering lifesaving, proven information that can end this pandemic.
Instead, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and even Vimeo would rather see Americans suffer and die so that a vaccine narrative can be aggressively pushed that enriches Big Pharma.
In other words, Big Tech is now complicit in the mass murder of Americans in order to protect the profit interests of Big Pharma.
This is where we are now in America: A criminal conspiracy of powerful corporations is now blacklisting critical knowledge for human health. They are doing it on purpose. They know people will die because of their actions, and they don’t care.
This. This is where we are in the story right now. Fake and 100% fraudulent anti-HCQ studies are A-OK with Youtube but a bevy of MD’s speaking from their professional experience is not. Lives don’t matter. *sigh* https://t.co/u4v8TMTQhb
— PeakProsperity.com – Fed goes Brrrrrrr (@chrismartenson) July 28, 2020
Just to confirm what Martenson is tweeting above, YouTube is happy to continue hosting videos promoting a “science” study that has long been retracted and exposed as a complete fraud, but YouTube won’t allow legitimate doctors with firsthand experience to talk about what they see working to save lives in the ER.
All Medical And Health Speech Will Now Be 100% Controlled By Google, Facebook And Twitter, All Evil Corporations That No Nothing About Health Or Nutrition
Even in a world where we’re told it’s always a good idea to get a second opinion on anything related to health and medicine, Big Tech has now decided they will dictate what opinions are allowed to be expressed online.
This means that for every disease from this day forward, Big Tech will dictate the “allowable” opinion about treatments for that disease… even though tech giants obviously do not have a monopoly on facts, nor any special competency in the realm of human medicine.
Here’s the video Big Tech doesn’t want you to see. They’ve gone out of their way to remove it everywhere because it dismantled the entire narrative that’s pushing vaccine mandates in America:
Big Tech, Big Pharma And Big Media Are Now Enemy Combatants Waging A WAR Against Humanity
I’ve been warning humanity about the evils of Big Pharma for over a decade, and I was among the first to be 100% censored and blacklisted by Big Tech as I warned what was coming. Now, even doctors across America are waking up to exactly what I was warning about: If you don’t have the correct opinion that Big Tech says is the only allowable truth, you will be censored and de-platformed.
You will also be smeared on Wikipedia and relentlessly attacked by left-wing media.
This means that for every debate, every disease and every event that takes place in our world from this day forward, there is only one allowable point of view that can be expressed, and it’s the point of view that’s chosen by the insane, authoritarian lunatics who run Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Vimeo, LinkedIn and other radical extremist tech giants.
Today we declare that all employees who work for Big Tech, Big Pharma or Big Media are, in fact, enemy combatants, terrorists and malicious bad faith actors who are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to mass murder millions of human beings.
Every person who works for Google is complicit in mass murder. Every fake news “journalist” who pushes propaganda for CNN is a treasonous criminal working against the interests of humanity. Every person who works for Big Pharma to push unsafe vaccines on billions of people is, in reality, working to destroy human lives and cause suffering and mass death, even if they have to see millions of people killed in the process of raking in their obscene profits.
It’s time we just said it straight out: There is a war being waged against humanity, and that war is being funded by at least 269 corporations such as Google, Netflix, Nike, Apple and Amazon. The goal is to achieve the mass slaughter of billions of human beings, whether through abortions, deadly vaccines, engineered famine or the deliberately provocation of social chaos and civil war.
We now live in a world where the gatekeepers of news and online information are actively, maliciously, deliberately suppressing medical information that could save millions of lives. This makes these corporations enemies against humanity and a clear and present danger to the future of human civilization on our planet.
If Humanity Is To Survive, Big Tech, Big Pharma And Big Media Must Be Defeated And Dismantled
If humanity is to survive, these evil corporate giants must be defeated and dismantled. We have now reached the point where the very future of human civilization is at risk of being obliterated by these evil corporate monsters who are conspiring to destroy our economies, our freedoms and our lives.
They don’t plan to end the lockdowns — ever! — because they are rolling out a global depopulation scheme to mass murder 90% of the human beings living today.
Humanity must rise up and defeat that corporate demons, or we will be destroyed by them.
How do we achieve the defeat and dismantling of these evil corporations that now represent an existential threat to humanity? For starters, we must demand that our political leaders take them down for their violations of anti-trust laws and civil rights legislation.
Today, President Trump tweeted that it’s time for him to take decisive action against Big Tech:
If Congress doesn’t bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders. In Washington, it has been ALL TALK and NO ACTION for years, and the people of our Country are sick and tired of it!
However, executive orders won’t be enough. It’s now clear that because Big Tech is at war with humanity, they will never voluntarily comply with any laws or rules that limit their power to control all online speech.
That’s why Trump needs to unleash the military against Big Tech by first declaring Big Tech to be engaged in an illegal insurrection against the United States of America, then dispatching military police to arrest all the corporate leaders and seize control of these treasonous corporations.
Trump must order to U.S. State Department to seize the domain names of all the tech giants: Google.com, Apple.com, Twitter.com, YouTube.com, Facebook.com, Vimeo.com and others. He must shut them down both online and offline, while the DOJ prosecutes the CEOs for treason.
The continued existence of Google, Facebook and other tech giants is flatly incompatible with free society. These evil corporations have proven they operate with zero respect for human rights, the rule of law or any sense of speech fairness. They operate with malicious contempt for U.S. laws and the United States Constitution. They abuse and exploit their power to rig elections, interfere with the First Amendment and silence their political opponents.
Now, they’re even silencing doctors because they don’t agree with their “second opinion.”
This has gone too far. Big Tech must be stopped.
And if Congress won’t act to dismantle Big Tech, We the People must defend ourselves against their acts of war against us.
The Day Is Coming When We The People Will Have To Dismantle The Tech Giants Or Be Enslaved By Techno-Tyranny
The People must occupy and dismantle the tech giants. They must sever every fiber optic line that feeds the Big Tech beast, and they must converge on Big Tech office buildings across the country and peacefully dismantle them, server by server, brick by brick, until this unprecedented evil has been banished from our world.
The “demon” of techno-tyranny must be defeated, or none of us will ever be free again.
Many in Congress are finally starting to fight back, but it’s probably too late. Republicans sat around for four years doing nothing, unable to comprehend how the internet works and therefore having no clue what was being engineered against America. As Breitbart.com is now reporting:
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and a host of other House conservatives introduced legislation on Wednesday that would block big tech giants from censoring lawful political speech on the Internet. Reps. Doug Collins (R-GA), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Lance Gooden (R-TX), Steve King (R-IA), Jim Banks (R-IN), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Ted Yoho (R-FL), Tom Tiffany (R-WI), Ron Wright (R-TX), and Gosar introduced the Stop the Censorship Act of 2020, which would revoke big tech companies’ Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act legal immunity if the tech platform were to remove lawful speech on their platform.
But it’s already too late. Google already rigged the 2018 mid-term elections, allowing Democrats to seize the House, so no legislation against Big Tech is currently possible.
That’s why any real solution must come from the President’s declaration of an open insurrection by Big Tech, followed by military action to take down every last corporation that’s actively waging war against America and humanity.
We are far beyond the point of a political solution here. Now, Google and other evil tech giants must be forced to stop their war against humanity.
They will not stop voluntarily. And they will ignore all laws. They are not acting in good faith, and they believe they are already more powerful than any government in the world.
Let’s see how they do against artillery if Trump finally invokes the 3D world layer for this conflict. Send in the tanks. Anything less will be pointless.
And for those of you who say the government should never exercise such power against corporations, ask yourself this question: What about the far more dangerous power over all speech that’s now being exploited by the corporations themselves?
Bad ideas (like communism) are more dangerous than bullets, which is why Google and the tech tyrants want total control over all ideas, speech, videos, memes and content. That’s a far greater threat to your liberty than any government action, especially if the entire point of the government’s action is to restore a level playing field for online speech.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – NOT a health or environmental agency – is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom industry. They have a LONG history of doing just the opposite (see 1, 2).
Their guidelines are embarrassingly outdated and don’t apply to how most of us use or are exposed to cell phone and wireless radiation today.
Lawsuits have already been filed against the agency for NOT protecting the public from unsafe levels of radiation (see 1, 2) as well as 5G.
An increasing number of federal agencies and elected officials are very unhappy with their actions (see 1, 2). None of this seems to matter to the them (see 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). One commissioner has even referred to their opponents as “Tin Foil Hat” people.
The ongoing purge of dissenting voices, shadow censorship and outright ban is the trademark of the Deep State: a rogue faction that has infiltrated all aspects of government and is now taking over the United State of America. The Republic is at risk. We have never faced such a danger before.
The Internet is an integrated part of our society and it has a huge impact on our daily lives. It is the modern day agora — the principal medium for communication, conducting business, exchange of information, the center of the artistic, spiritual and political life.
The Internet must be protected at all costs!
Trump Signs Executive Order Stripping Social Media Companies Of “Liability Shield”:
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.
One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.
Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c).
It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.
As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.
In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”
It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.
Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.
When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.