Google quietly changed its policies to allow your YouTube usage (and other interactions) to be used to train an AI to assassinate you. 👇

In case you're wondering... "supporting grassroots freedom movements around the world" means... "Undermining the governments of sovereign nations, against the will of their people, for fun and profit" This is how hegemony works. You always have a few partisans among the native population. Maybe they like your culture. Maybe they like your political philosophy. Maybe they stand to gain if their nation becomes your vassal state. Maybe they just like your money. But there are always a few, and you can always use them as a foothold and moral excuse to conquer other nations, whether through subversion or force. Putin's case for invading Ukraine was that Ukrainians are Russians, Ukraine is part of Russia, and he has plenty of partisans in the eastern part of Ukraine who agree with those ideas. That's how this all works. The US federal government does the same thing, but stupider. Since the end of the cold war, the political interests that profit off the US war machine has needed new excuses for military adventures. The purpose of these military adventures is to launder your paycheck, through the IRS and into their pockets. But the excuse for these military adventures is liberal hegemony. It's basically a reskin of communism's playbook, but instead of spreading socialism, you're spreading classical liberalism, which you are carefully to call "freedom and democracy". The actual plan is the same. Economic isolation, ideological subversion, and regime change. NED is the ideological subversion part. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the military-industrial complex. The DoD provides weapons and soldiers, NED provides excuses. But... wait a minute... isn't classical liberalism actually a good thing? Aren't freedom and democracy actual words, with real meanings, and aren't they demonstrably better than at least some alternatives? After all, they've worked out for America, and since we obviously like it here, aren't we at least somewhat obligated to consider them an absolute good? Wouldn't it be better if, say, China, became a democracy? Well, pump the brakes, there. Democracy, and hybrid representative governments (which is what we are actually supposed to have) is a bottom-up, not a top-down, process. If the people don't want it, you don't have it, no matter how much you force them at gunpoint to pretend they do. Most of the world simply doesn't want freedom and democracy, they want unity, stability, and strong rulers. Most of the world doesn't want classical liberalism, they want their traditional way of life. And forcing them to accept these things at gunpoint kinda makes the delivery contradict the message. The actual effective way to spread a superior political philosophy is by example of superior results. After all, if a political philosophy does not yield superior results, it is not a superior philosophy. And under this premise, we can see why most of the world doesn't want freedom and democracy. After all, it worked out great for us only until we started letting randos from the rest of the world in. And what this proved was that classical liberalism isn't a superior philosophy for everyone all the time It just works better than anything else under a certain very restricted set of circumstances. The people of the third world who don't want democracy may not be sophisticated philosophical thinkers, they may not be able to master multi-story building construction, indoor plumbing, or a high literacy rate. They may have room temperature average IQs, but they are absolutely right not to want democracy because it won't work for them. Liberia can't have a functional US-style government because Liberia is full of Liberians. And spending seventeen million US dollars (that's the full tax bill of 1,272 average Americans) advising them on tax policy isn't going to change that. But that doesn't matter, because bringing the benefits of classical liberalism to the world isn't the point. They know it won't work. They just don't care because they are getting paid. Out of your paycheck. The US federal government has no noble causes, only patrons and outstretched palms.

Opening statement by Matt Taibbi: "Two years ago when Michael and I first testified before your weaponization of government subcommittee, Democratic members called us so called journalists, suggested we were bought off scribes, and questioned our ethics and our loyalties. When we tried to answer, we were told to shut up, take our take off our tinfoil hats, and remember two things." "One, there is no digital censorship, and two, if there is digital censorship, it's for our own good. I was shocked. I thought the whole thing had to be a mistake. There was no way the party that I gave votes to my whole life was now pro censorship. Then last year, I listened to John Kerry, whom I voted for, talked to the World Economic Forum." "Speaking about this information, he said, quote, our first amendment stands as a major block to our ability to, quote, hammer it out of existence. He complained that it's really hard to govern because people self select where they go for their news, which makes it quote, much harder to build consensus." "Now, I defended John Kerry when people said he looks French, but Marie Antoinette would have been embarrassed by this speech. He was essentially complaining that the peasants are self selecting their own sources of media. What's next?" "Letting them make up their own minds? Lastly, building consensus may be a politician's job, but it's not mine as a citizen or as a journalist. In fact, making it hard to govern is exactly the media's job. The failure to understand this is why we have a censorship problem. This is an Alamo moment for the First Amendment." "Most of America's closest allies as both, Rupa and Michael have pointed out, have already adopted draconian speech laws. We are surrounded. The EU's new Digital Services Act is the most comprehensive censorship law ever instituted in a Western democratic society. Ranking member Raskin, you don't have to go as far as Russia or China to find people jailed for speech. Our allies in England now have an online safety act, which empowers the government to jail people for nebulous offenses like false communication or causing psychological harm." "Germany, France, Australia, Canada, and other nations have implemented similar ideas. These laws are totally incompatible with our system. Some of our own citizens have been harassed or even arrested in some of these countries, but our government has not stood up for them. Why? Because many of our bureaucrats believe in these laws." "Take USAID. Many Americans are now in an uproar because they they learned about over $400,000,000 going to an organization called Inner News, whose chief Jeanne Bourgeault boasted to Congress about training hundreds of thousands of people in journalism. But her views are almost identical to Carrie's. She gave a talk once about building trust and combating misinformation in India during the pandemic. She said that after months of a really beautifully unified COVID nineteen message, vaccine enthusiasm rose to 87%." "But when, quote, mixed information on vaccine efficacy got out, hesitancy ensued. We're paying this person to train journalists, and she doesn't know that the press does not exist to promote unity or political goals like vaccine enthusiasm. That's propaganda, not journalism. Bourdieu also once said that to fight bad content, we need to work really hard on exclusionless or inclusionless and, quote, really need to focus our ad ad dollars toward what she called the good news." "Again, if you don't know the fastest way to erode trust in media is by having government sponsor exclusion lists, you shouldn't be getting a dollar in taxpayer money, let alone 476,000,000 of it. And USAID is just a tiny piece of the censorship machine Michael and I saw across that long list of agencies." "Collectively, they bought up every part of the news production line, sources, think tanks, research, fact checking, anti disinformation, commercial media scoring, and when all else fails, straight up censorship. It is a giant closed messaging loop whose purpose is to transform the free press into exactly that consensus machine. There is no way to remove this rod surgically. The whole mechanism has to go." "Is there right wing misinformation? Hell, yes. It exists in every direction. But I grew up a Democrat and don't remember being afraid of it. At the time, we figured we didn't need censorship because we thought we had the better argument." "Obviously, many of you lack the same confidence. You took billions of dollars from taxpayers and you blew it on programs whose entire purpose was to tell them they're wrong about things they can see with their own eyes. You sold us out. And until these rather tires tiresome questions are answered, this problem is not fixed. Thank you."

🇺🇸🇪🇺🇺🇦🚨 FULL SPEECH: The US secretary of defense Hegseth says: - The Bloodbath Must End - Returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic goal and pursuing this false goal will only increase suffering - The US does not believe that Ukraine's membership in NATO is a realistic outcome of the upcoming negotiations - If there are any peacekeepers in Ukraine, it will not be under the auspices of NATO and not in accordance with Article 5 of the Charter - US troops will not go to Ukraine, US military presence cannot be part of security guarantees - It is Europe that should provide Ukraine with more military aid - 2% is not enough, Trump calls on Europe to increase military spending to 5% of GDP - The US is facing threats to its own borders and will focus on protecting them - Communist China is a threat to US borders and US prioritizes such threats - The US will no longer tolerate NATO's unequal defense policies that create dependency