Good luck with that Mark.As I recall, come the day such bunkers will be required, particularly by those who screwed the planet, and more recently Hawaii, there will actually be nowhere for such to hide…EWNZ
Mark Zuckerberg is planning to survive the end times by building a top-secret Hawaii doomsday-bunker with its own sources of food and energy within a sprawling, $100 million compound in Hawaii, according to a Wired investigation. Zuckerberg has added hundreds of acres to his controversial 1,500-acre ranch in Kauai, Hawaii for years, but now it has been revealed that there are new planning documents for a “5,000-square-foot underground shelter.”
Several former contract workers at the ranch were bound by a non disclosure agreement (NDA) that made anyone on-site unwilling to “take the chance to get caught even taking a picture,” but, according to the Wired investigation, detailed public planning documents obtained through public records requests “show the makings of an opulent techno-Xanadu, complete with underground shelter and what appears to be a blast-resistant door.” Wired.
Below is the Wired investigation that reveals the true scale of the project—and its impact on the local community.
Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Top-Secret Hawaii Compound
OFF THE TWO-LANE highway that winds along the northeast side of the Hawaiian island of Kauai, on a quiet stretch of ranchland between the tourist hubs of Kapaa and Hanalei, an enormous, secret construction project is underway.
A 6-foot wall blocks the view from a nearby road fronting the project, where cars slow to try to catch a glimpse of what’s behind it. Security guards stand watch at an entrance gate and patrol the surrounding beaches on ATVs. Pickup trucks roll in and out, hauling building materials and transporting hundreds of workers.
Note: many of us have been saying this for a very long time … dismissed by the masses as conspiracy theory. Now conspiracy fact. EWNZ
The Rise of the Global Police State
Story at-a-glance
The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals are not about sustainability. They’re tools to facilitate the implementation of a One World Government
The term the globalist alliance uses to describe its network is a “global public-private partnership,” or G3P. The G3P is composed of most of the world’s governments, intergovernmental organizations, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups. Collectively, they are the “stakeholders” that are implementing the SDGs
While SDG16 claims to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” this goal is really about consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and implementing a centrally controlled global system of digital identity (digital ID)
A digital identity is not merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7. Universal adoption of digital identity will enable the G3P global governance regime to establish a behavioral-based system of reward and punishment
The COVID pandemic was used to redefine human rights and to get people used to the idea that the rights of individuals are conditional and can be ignored or suspended “for the greater good.” The United Nations’ Charter establishes a global governance regime that stands against freedom, justice and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be understood within this context
At this point in time, it’s crucial to realize that the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are part of the plan to implement a One World Government, where the entire world will be run by unelected bureaucrats beholden to technocratic ideals.
In a two-part Unlimited Hangout investigative series,1,2 independent journalists Iain Davis and Whitney Webb expose how Sustainable Development Goal No. 16 (SDG16), which claims to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” is really about consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and forcing a “centrally controlled global system of digital identity3 (digital ID) upon humanity.”
As explained in Part 1,4 the term the globalist alliance of technocrats use to describe its network is a “global public-private partnership,” or G3P:
“The G3P is toiling tirelessly to create the conditions necessary to justify the imposition of both global governance ‘with teeth’ and its prerequisite digital ID system. In doing so, the G3P is inverting the nature of our rights. It manufactures and exploits crises in order to claim legitimacy for its offered ‘solutions.’
The G3P comprises virtually all of the world’s intergovernmental organizations, governments, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups. Collectively, these form the ‘stakeholders’ implementing sustainable development, including SDG16.”
The following chart, sourced from IanDavis.com,5 illustrates how the G3P operates.
What SDG16 Is Really About
The central objective of SDG16 is to strengthen the UN-led regime, and of all the subgoals included in this SDG, the establishment of “a legal identity for all” (SDG16.9), is the most crucial, as other goals rely on the use of digital identity. As noted by Davis and Webb:6
“Universal adoption of SDG16.9 digital ID will enable the G3P global governance regime’s to establish a worldwide system of reward and punishment. If we accept the planned model of digital ID, it will ultimately enslave us in the name of sustainable development …
SDG16.9 ‘sustainable development’ means we must use digital ID … Otherwise we will not be protected in law, service access will be denied, our right to transact in the modern economy will be removed, we will be barred from participating as ‘citizens’ and excluded from so-called ‘democracy.’”
Understanding Digital Identity
The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Schwab, has for years promoted the implementation of digital identity. The problem with calling it “digital ID” is that people misunderstand it to be something it’s not. There’s a huge difference between identity and identification.7
Identification refers to documents that prove you are who you say you are. A digital identity is NOT merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you actually are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7.
Your identity encompasses everything that makes you unique, and that’s what the globalist cabal is really after. Step out of line, and every social media interaction, every penny spent and every move you’ve ever made can be used against you.
Indeed, having access to everyone’s digital identity is the key to successful manipulation and control of the global population. The graphic below, from the WEF, illustrates their idea of how your digital identity will interact with the world.
Everything you can think of is to be connected to your digital identity, and your behavior, beliefs and opinions will dictate what you can and cannot do within society. It will unlock doors where someone like you is welcome, and lock the ones where you’re not.
If you think the idea of vaccine passports is insane, wait until your access to critical infrastructure and services is dependent not just on your vaccination status, but also what books you’ve bought, what ideas you’ve shared, and who you’ve given money or emotional support to.
Interoperability Will Link Disparate Systems Together
As people are coming to understand the threat of a One World Government, resistance against digital ID and the social credit score that comes with it has started to mount. The G3P’s answer to that dilemma is the construction of an interoperable system that can link disparate digital ID systems together. As explained by Davis and Webb:8
“This ‘modular platform’ approach is designed to avoid the political problems that the official issuance of a national digital ID card would otherwise elicit.
Establishing SDG16.9 global digital ID is crucial for 8 of the 17 UN SDGs. It is the linchpin at the center of a global digital panopticon that is being devised under the auspices of the UN’s global public-private partnership ‘regime.’”
You Have No Rights, Only Permits, Under the New World Order
You may be wondering where human rights enter into all of this. If your digital ID records every move you make, which can then be used against you, won’t that violate some of your basic rights as a free human being? Well, that depends on how human rights are defined — and who defines them. Davis and Webb explain:9
“… the Universal Declaration of Human Rights … was first accepted by all members of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. The preamble of the Declaration recognizes that the ‘equal and inalienable rights’ of all human beings are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’
After that, ‘inalienable rights’ are never again mentioned in the entire Declaration. ‘Human rights’ are nothing like ‘inalienable rights.’
Inalienable rights, unlike human rights, are not bestowed upon us by any governing authority. Rather, they are innate to each of us. They are immutable. They are ours in equal measure. The only source of inalienable rights is Natural Law, or God’s Law.
No one — no government, no intergovernmental organization, no human institution or human ruler — can ever legitimately claim the right to grant or deny our inalienable rights. Humanity can claim no collective authority to grant or deny the inalienable rights of any individual human being.
Beyond the preamble, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) concerns itself exclusively with ‘human rights.’ But asserting, as it does, that human rights are some sort of expression of inalienable rights is a fabrication — a lie.
Human rights, according to the UDHR, are created by certain human beings and are bestowed by those human beings upon other human beings. They are not inalienable rights or anything close to inalienable rights.
Article 6 of the UDHR and Article 16 of the UN’s 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights … both decree: ‘Everyone has the [human] right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.’
Note: We put ‘[human]’ in brackets … to alert readers that these documents are NOT referring to inalienable rights. While the respective Articles 6 and 16 sound appealing, the underlying implications are not.
Both articles mean that ‘without legal existence those rights may not be asserted by a person within the domestic legal order.’ As we shall see, the ability to prove one’s identity will become a prerequisite for ‘legal existence.’ Thus, in a post-SDG16 world, persons without UN-approved identification will be unable to assert their ‘human rights’ …
Article 29.3 of the UDHR states: ‘These [human] rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’
In plain English: We are only allowed to exercise our alleged human ‘rights’ subject to the diktats of governments, intergovernmental organizations and other UN ‘stakeholders.’ The bottom line, then, is that what the UN calls ‘human rights’ are … government and intergovernmental permits by which our behavior is controlled.”
COVID Was an Opportunity to Reset the Playing Field
Our behavior is also controlled through censorship and control of information. In its “COVID-19 and Human Rights” document,10 published in April 2020, the UN presents human rights as policy tools and openly admits that “securing compliance” with health measures that severely restrict (or outright eliminate) human rights will depend on “building trust,” and that includes censoring that which might undermine trust in authorities.
Censorship of “misinformation” and “disinformation” is also required under the proposed International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, which places the World Health Organization at the center of all pandemic-related agendas, and in the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs). Importantly, both of these instruments will be binding. As noted by Davis and Webb:11
“The current proposed amendments12 to the IHR illustrate how ‘crises’ provide unique opportunities for the UN and its partners to control populations — through purported ‘human rights’ — by exploiting those ‘rights’ as ‘a powerful set of tools.’
Here is one example of the proposals being put forth: The WHO wishes to remove the following language from IHR Article 3.1: ‘The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.’
It intends to replace that regulatory principle with: ‘The implementation of these Regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with the common but differentiated responsibilities of their States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.’
This proposed amendment signifies that the UN and its partners wish to completely ignore the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights whenever any of these agencies declares a new ‘crisis’ or identifies a new ‘international threat.’ This exemplifies the ‘course-correction’ the UN envisioned would arise from the ‘unique opportunity’ presented by the COVID-19 crisis.”
The UN Has Already Assumed Authority; No One Granted It
Right now, the WHO appears to be set up to become the de facto global government, but the UN is also a contender, and it has openly assumed this authority.
For example, in its “UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda” document,13 published in 2013, it states that “A global governance regime, under the auspices of the UN, will have to ensure that the global commons will be preserved for future generations.”
“The United Nation’s Charter establishes a global governance regime that stands against freedom, justice and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be understood within this context.”
As noted by Davis and Webb:14
“The UN calls itself a ‘global governance regime.’ It is arbitrarily assuming the authority to seize control of everything (‘the global commons’), including humans, both by enforcing its Charter — citing its misnamed ‘Human Rights’ declaration — and by fulfilling its ‘Sustainable Development’ agenda.
Note that the ‘global governance regime’ will ultimately ‘translate into better national and regional governance.’ This means that the role of each national government is merely to ‘translate’ global governance into national policy. Electing one political party or another to undertake the translation makes no material difference. The policy is not set by the governments we elect.
As nation-states one by one implement SDG-based policies, the regime further consolidates its global governance. And since the ‘global governance regime will be critical to achieve sustainable development,’ the two mechanisms — global governance and sustainable development — are symbiotic.
Again, by the UN’s own admission, inalienable rights are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ Yet the UN’s entire Charter-based human rights framework comprehensively rejects the principle of inalienable and immutable rights.
The UN Charter is, therefore, an international treaty that establishes a global governance regime which stands firmly against ‘freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ All of the UN’s ‘sustainable development’ projects should be understood in this context …
You may wonder what Sustainable Development Goal 16 … has to do with protecting the planet and its inhabitants from the predicted ‘climate disaster.’ The answer is: nothing at all. But then, ‘climate change’ is merely the proffered rationale that purportedly legitimizes and lends urgency to sustainable development.
Establishing firm global governance — in effect, a world dictatorship — through the implementation of SDGs is the United Nations’ real objective. ‘Climate change’ is just the excuse.”
‘One Health’ — The Global Takeover of Everything
The pandemic treaty and IHR amendments, once enacted, will form the foundation for the WHO’s legal authority to act as a global governing body. Both are broadly focused on pandemic preparedness, planning and response, but there are built in loopholes that can easily be invoked by the WHO to turn it into a de facto global dictatorship.
The central instrument that will allow for the vast expansion of the WHO’s power is something called the One Health Joint Plan of Action, officially launched in October 2022 by the WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH).
This initiative amounts to multiple globalist organizations synchronizing their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power.
The “One Health”15,16 agenda recognizes that a broad range of human and environmental aspects can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm. For example, this is how the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and subsequently require climate lockdowns.
The graphic17 below illustrates how the WHO’s scope of control is expanded under the One Health agenda to cover vast aspects of everyday life.
On paper, the One Health Joint Plan of Action “seeks to improve the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment, while contributing to sustainable development.”18 Its five-year plan, which spans 2022 to 2026, intends to expand capacities in six key areas, including health care systems, the environment and food safety.
The plan includes a technical document that covers a set of actions intended to advance One Health at global, regional and national levels. As reported by the WHO:19
“These actions notably include the development of an upcoming implementation guidance for countries, international partners, and non-state actors such as civil society organizations, professional associations, academia and research institutions.”
In other words, the goal is to create health, environmental and food safety rules to be followed on a global scale.
The Endgame and How to Stop It
In an April 16, 2023, Substack article,20 Jessica Rose, a postdoctoral researcher in biology, tried to make sense of the last three years. Starting at the end, she believes the endgame is the “conversion of the majority of human beings into workers … like ants.”
To get there, the globalists must dehumanize us, systematically chip away at the human spirit, render us infertile and destroy all notions of bodily autonomy and national sovereignty. The plan has worked well so far, but cracks are beginning to show. More and more people are starting to put the puzzle pieces together, as Rose attempts to do in her article.
The COVID pandemic was the set-up, Rose suggests. It was geared to “test compliance levels” and set the scene for the next act, which was to normalize all things abnormal. The trans movement, which completely overwhelmed the social consciousness in a single year, is a continuation and expansion of that “normalization of the abnormal” phase.
It’s also a major component of the agenda to dehumanize and sterilize the population. After all, trans youth — who are also among the most brainwashed individuals in society right now — are the future of humanity. A brand-new report by legal experts backed by the United Nations is also seeking to normalize pedophilia,21 which would further dehumanize and de-spirit our youth for generations to come.
Adding insult to injury, the report was published March 8, 2023, “in recognition” of International Women’s Day. Never mind the fact that young girls and women are the primary victims of this sick mindset.
The “manmade climate change” hysteria and subsequent war on carbon is another fabricated “emergency” that is unhinged from science and reality. And the UN’s SDGs are perfectly tailored to enable the endgame. Under these goals, human freedom, human health and quality of life are sacrificed to “protect the environment and save the planet.”
As Rose notes, if the WHO pandemic treaty goes through, we can expect to be locked down indefinitely under the guise of “some climate catastrophe, likely linked to some ‘deadly pathogen’ passed to humans via some insect vector like mosquitoes.”
By then, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will also be in place, which will enable the unelected totalitarian regime to enforce whatever restrictions the WHO and its funders dream up, be it related to the food you’re allowed to eat based on your carbon footprint, the drugs you’re forced to take, what causes you’re allowed to fund, what businesses you’re allowed to buy from, when and how far you’re allowed to travel or anything else.
“A practical way I can think of to stop the endgame from being realized is to stop the CBDC,” Rose writes. “Use cash. Insist upon it. Do not give business to stores that only use cashless systems. Supply equals demand, so demand the use of CASH.”
Other Strategies to Reclaim Our Freedoms
Other ways to prevent the WHO’s power grab, include the following:
Governments and tech giants enact censorship through laws like Canada’s Online News Act, prompting Meta and Google to ban news content. The bill has been in the works for the last five years, again proving that online censorship is not something that sprang up in response to COVID.
Story at-a-glance
September 19, 2023, the U.K. passed a new law to censor online content. The Online Safety Bill has been described as “one of the most far-reaching attempts by Western democracy to regulate online speech”
The bill has been in the works for the last five years, again proving that online censorship is not something that sprang up in response to COVID
In addition to stricter regulations on pornography and content that promotes suicide and self-harm, “vaccine misinformation” and any other material that may be “harmful to health” is also barred under the bill
The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) also recently took effect, and it too requires online companies to actively police their platforms
September 29, 2023, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) also announced all “online streaming services that offer podcasts” must now register and conform to regulatory controls
If you think freedom of speech has gone down the tubes, you haven’t seen the half of it yet. September 19, 2023, the U.K. passed a new law to “regulate” (read, censor) online content. The so-called Online Safety Bill has been described as “one of the most far-reaching attempts by Western democracy to regulate online speech.”1
Interestingly, the bill has been in the works for the last five years,2 again proving that online censorship is not something that sprang up in response to COVID. Governments have been steadily moving in this direction for a long time.
As reported by The New York Times,3 the bill forces online platforms to “proactively screen for objectionable material and to judge whether it is illegal, rather than requiring them to act only after being alerted to illicit content.”
September 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld part of the lower court’s injunction, banning the White House, surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI from influencing social media companies to remove “disinformation.”4
Unfortunately, the appellate court also reversed, vacated and modified other parts of the original injunction,5 leaving the door wide open for certain federal agencies to continue their censorship activities.
Importantly, officials from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) were excluded,6 even though CISA has played a major, if not central, role in the government’s censorship of Americans.
CISA partnered with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), later renamed the Virality Project,7 and in an Atlantic Council interview, EIP head Alex Stamos openly admitted that the partnership was set up to outsource censorship that the government could not do due to “lack of legal authorization.”8
Chances are, other Western countries have been using similar kinds of censorship schemes up to this point. Now, however, the U.K. and EU have enshrined censorship in law, requiring companies to do their dirty work.
This is because, of course, someone will have to decide what kind of information is “legal” and what’s not, and that decision is most likely going to come either from the government, or some unelected deep state organization like the World Health Organization.
If a similar law makes its way to the U.S., it would effectively constitute an end run around the Constitution, because the Constitution does not allow the government to outsource freedom of speech restrictions, which is basically what the Online Safety Bill does.
New Law Assumes Precognitive Abilities
Lorna Woods, a professor of internet law at the University of Essex, who helped draft the law, told The New York Times:9
“At its heart, the bill contains a simple idea: that providers should consider the foreseeable risks to which their services give rise and seek to mitigate — like many other industries already do.”
One wonders whether she’s talking about the endless warnings companies place on their products, like “Warning: Coffee may be hot!” or “Do not hold the wrong end of a chainsaw,” “Do not operate while sleeping,” or “Do not drive with sunshield in place.”10 But can anyone truly foresee the risks of sharing information?
Sure, those who champion the bill highlight the risks of sharing pornography and information that might promote suicide, self-harm or eating disorders. That kind of information must either be restricted, using age-verification and other measures, or eliminated.
Few ought to have qualms about that, but we can be sure that that’s not the primary aim of this bill. Ultimately, it will be used to stifle or ban information that is inconvenient to those in power. “Vaccine misinformation,” for example, will be barred under the new bill, along with any other material that may be “harmful to health.”11
The World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments designate the WHO as the final arbiter of truth regarding health.
But who decides what might harm health? Those in power, of course, whether we can identify them or not. We know, however, that the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments designate the WHO as the final arbiter of truth regarding health.
Considering the WHO is owned by its funders, with Bill Gates topping that list, we can be assured that things like holistic health and accurate dietary information will end up on the chopping block, as it already has.
Incidentally, many argue that “anti-vaxxers” must be censored lest they profit from their misinformation, but recent research12 actually found that “Contrary to expectations, websites promoted in pro-vaccine venues do more to monetize attention than those promoted in anti-vaccine venues.” In other words, pro-vaccine sources are profiting from their information sharing to a far greater degree than those sharing information that is derogatory.
We’ve also seen how the bill is already being used to silence specific individuals, such as Russell Brand, who is being accused of sexual improprieties and other abuses by four women he allegedly accosted between 2006 and 2013. Curiously, these accusations only arose after he started supporting Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign and warning about the global coup underway.
In September 2023, Dame Caroline Dinenage, chairwoman of the British Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee — whose husband was commander in the British Army’s psy-ops division13 — wrote a letter14 to Rumble asking them to demonetize Brand’s channel.15
By then, he’d already been demonetized by YouTube, based on the sexual abuse allegations levied against him.16 YouTube reportedly justified their action saying Brand had violated its “creator responsibility policy.”
As noted by The Gray Zone,17 “This marks the first time a content creator has been financially punished by the company for reasons other than the videos published on the site.” A spokesperson for YouTube confirmed that the platform will now “take action” “if a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem.”
Rumble’s chief executive Chris Pavlovski refused to demonetize Brand, stating, “We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the U.K. parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living.”18
That refusal may ultimately lead to Rumble being banned in the U.K. under the new law. It’s even been suggested that Rumble executives may be at risk of being arrested should they visit the U.K.19 Brand, for his part, has accused the British government of “bypassing judicial process.” Speaking in a live stream, Brand said:
“You know I’ve been demonetized on YouTube. You are aware that the government wrote to social media platforms to demand that I be further censored.
In a sense, the bypassing of judicial process, right to punitive measures, financial ones, seems like an interesting stance for a government minister to be suggesting to a big tech platform.
What we appear to be looking at here are a set of collaborating institutions that have an agenda, and pursue that agenda, even when in pursuing it they have to bypass, obstruct, or absolutely ignore existing judicial or regulatory bodies by moving straight to punitive measures.”
It doesn’t matter how you feel about Brand, or whether you believe the accusations against him. The danger inherent in these punitive measures should be self-evident to everyone.
Anyone can falsely accuse you of something and effectively destroy your ability to make a living if government and/or tech companies have the ability to act as judge and jury. Is that really the kind of society we want?
Many Companies Will Not Be Able to Comply
It’s quite clear that many companies will not be able to comply with the new law. The Wikimedia Foundation, for example, which operates Wikipedia, has already said it’ll be unable to do so, and may be blocked in the U.K. as a result.
This isn’t a great loss, per se, considering Wikipedia is an information warfare tool, but countless other information brokers will likely find that they are unable to predict the “foreseeable risks” of the information shared on their platform.
Compliance failures can cost companies up to $22.3 million, or up to 10% of global revenue, whichever is higher. Company executives can also be held criminally liable if they fail to comply with investigative efforts and/or fail to comply with rules related to child safety and the sexual exploitation of children.
Considering the liabilities, those who decide to abide by the new law will likely follow the rule of “better safe than sorry” and use their censorship powers with an excessively heavy hand.
In the end, what we may be left with is state-sponsored propaganda and videos of puppies and kittens. Everything else will be too risky to keep on the platform, because who knows what information might become inconvenient next?
EU Requires Platforms to Police Speech Too
The new U.K. law is not alone in requiring censorship. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) also recently took effect, and it too requires online companies to actively police their platforms. As reported by The Verge:20
“Starting on August 25th, 2023, tech giants like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and more must comply with sweeping legislation that holds online platforms legally accountable for the content posted to them …
Under the new rules, online platforms must implement ways to prevent and remove posts containing illegal goods, services, or content while simultaneously giving users the means to report this type of content.”
On the upside, the DSA also bans targeted advertising and restricts ads targeting children. It also requires platforms to be more transparent about how their algorithms work, and requires “very large” platforms — any online company with more than 45 million monthly EU users — to allow users to opt out of profiling and personalization engines.
This includes Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Shapchat, TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, Bing and several others.21
On the other hand, the law also requires very large platforms to share data with researchers and authorities, and to cooperate with “crisis response requirements.” The Digital Services Coordinator and the EU Commission will also have the power to “require immediate actions where necessary to address very serious harms.”
Compliance failures can cost a company up to 6% of their global revenue, and repeated refusal to comply with rules or requests for action can result in suspension of the platform within the EU.
Canada Announces New Rules for Streaming Services
Canada is also upping the ante. September 29, 2023, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced all “online streaming services that offer podcasts” must now register and conform to regulatory controls. As reported in an official press release:22
“Today, the CRTC is advancing its regulatory plan to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content …
First, the CRTC is setting out which online streaming services need to provide information about their activities in Canada.
Online streaming services that operate in Canada, offer broadcasting content, and earn $10 million or more in annual revenues will need to complete a registration form by November 28, 2023 …
Second, the CRTC is setting conditions for online streaming services to operate in Canada. These conditions take effect today and require certain online streaming services to provide the CRTC with information related to their content and subscribership.
The decision also requires those services to make content available in a way that is not tied to a specific mobile or Internet service. A third consultation is ongoing. It considers contributions traditional broadcasters and online streaming services will need to make to support Canadian and Indigenous content.”
Large-Enough Content Providers Must Register as Well
Initially, the CRTC promised that content providers who simply upload their podcasts to available broadcasting services would not be impacted, but that turned out to be another bait-and-switch. What’s more, the CRTC conveniently didn’t mention this detail in its press release. For those details, you have to read through the actual regulatory policy.23 As reported by independent journalist Michael Shellenberger, October 2, 2023:24
“For months, representatives of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government insisted that their plans to regulate Big Tech social media platforms wouldn’t impact independent news outlets or podcasters … But it turns out that the government is, in fact, going to regulate content providers, not just Big Tech social media platforms.
The government regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), announced on Friday that it would require registration by independent content producers, including online news companies and ‘individuals that host podcasts on their own websites.’
The CRTC says that the law only covers media companies with $10 million or more per year in revenue and that the information it is demanding is minimal … But, notes Canadian legal analyst Michael Geist, ‘The takeaway from the decision is obvious: registration is the first step toward regulation … In fact, the rationale for the CRTC to include many of the services is that without such information, it is not well positioned to regulate.’
The Liberal Party plainly misled the public into thinking that platforms would only be regulated, not content providers. There are many independent media companies with over $10 million annually in revenue that will be forced to register.”
Canada’s Online News Act
Earlier this year, Canada also rolled out its new Online News Act,25 which requires “dominant platforms” to “compensate news businesses when their content is made available on their services.” As a result, Facebook and Instagram ended up eliminating Canadians’ ability to view any news on its platform, regardless of where the news originates from. As explained by Facebook, June 1, 2023:26
“In order to comply with the Online News Act, we have begun the process of ending news availability in Canada … News links and content posted by news publishers and broadcasters in Canada will no longer be viewable by people in Canada …
News publishers and broadcasters outside of Canada will continue to be able to post news links and content, however, that content will not be viewable by people in Canada … People in Canada will no longer be able to view or share news content on Facebook and Instagram, including news articles and audio-visual content posted by news outlets.”
Synchronized Censorship Push
What we’re seeing is a synchronized push for more radical censorship, upheld by law, and while it’s currently focused in the EU, Britain and Canada, we can be sure that it’s coming to the U.S. as well.
It would be here already were it not for our Constitution, which is slowing things down. Still, the noose is tightening with each passing day, as the U.S. government is working overtime to figure out how to circumvent the highest law of the land.
There are no easy answers to this problem. One basic suggestion, however, would be to withdraw support from censorship-based platforms like YouTube, and support free speech platforms like Rumble instead.
So, you’ve watched How BlackRock Conquered the World and you’re now aware of how this financial behemoth with trillions of dollars of assets under management has taken over vast swaths of the economy. You know how BlackRock is one of the top institutional investors in seemingly every major Fortune 500 company, and you understand how Fink and the gang are leveraging this incredible wealth to wield political and social power, directing industry and ultimately steering the course of civilization.
And since you did watch that podcastumentary to the very end, you’ll also remember how I pointed out that the top institutional investor in most of these companies is not BlackRock, but The Vanguard Group.
(Please read the description for context of what you are getting, and what to do with it.)
The media, your pediatrician, politicians and health authorities like the CDC and FDA claim that vaccines are safe and effective. So why do hundreds of peer-reviewed studies indicate the opposite is true? Read, download, and share this document widely to provide the necessary evidence-based counterbalance to the pro-vaccination propaganda that has globally infected popular consciousness and discussion like an intractable disease.
It is abundantly clear that if the present-day vaccine climate, namely, that everyone must comply with the CDC’s one-size-fits-all vaccination schedule or be labeled a health risk to society at large, is to succumb to open and balanced discussion, it is the peer-reviewed biomedical evidence itself that is going to pave the way towards making rational debate on the subject happen.
With this aim in mind, GreenMedInfo.com has painstakingly collected over 300 pages of study abstracts culled directly from the National Library of Medicine’s pubmed.gov bibliographic database on the wide-ranging adverse health effects linked to vaccines in the today’s schedule (over 200 distinct adverse effects, including death), as well as numerous studies related to vaccine contamination, and vaccine failure in highly vaccine compliant populations.
This is the literature that the media, politicians and governmental health organizations like the CDC, pretend with abject dishonesty does not exist – as if vaccine injury did not happen, despite the over 3 billion dollars our government has paid out to vaccine injured through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund since it was inaugurated in 1986.
We have written extensively about this research previously, highlighting different studies, focusing on translating their implications to the lay persons (view our vaccine article section here), but we believe that collecting and condensing solely the primary literature itself makes a much more powerful statement.
This document is being made free to download to the world at large in order to encourage the lay public, health professionals, activists, and elected officials alike to read, acknowledge and share the voluminous literature with their family, friends, colleagues and related stakeholders. You will find this research undermines the national and global agenda to continue to expand the vaccine schedule (on behalf of a vaccine industry that is indemnified against lawsuit for defective or harmful products), with increasing legislative pressure to remove exemptions and mandate them against the evidence of harm and at best equivocal effectiveness as a preventive health measure.
If the vaccination arm of modern medicine today is to continue to promote itself as a science- and evidence-based practice, it must acknowledge and incorporate the implications of the research we are releasing here, or lose any pretense at credibility. Failing to do so will reveal that the widespread push to remove your choice in the matter is agenda and not evidence driven, and due to the fact that vaccines all carry the risk of irreversible harm and even death(any vaccine insert proves this), it clearly violates the Nuremberg code of medical ethics to promote them as a priori safe and effectiveness….
Environmental Health Watch NZ 
You must be logged in to post a comment.