Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - Russell Brand Highlights Online Safety Bill | Censorship Conspiracy Podcasts

Episode Date: October 4, 2023

The UK has passed its controversial online censorship act known as the Online Safety Bill. The bill, one of the widest sweeping attacks on privacy and free speech in a Western democracy will become law. The bill seeks to shield internet users, especially youth, from the slingshots of malicious online content. But the bill goes beyond forcing platforms to remove illegal content.The issue at hand raises concerns about the potential for this bill to exert substantial control over online speech across all platforms, potentially ushering in a period of authoritarian rule in the near future. Russell Brand recently brought attention to this matter on his show, delving into the profound implications of the bill. Is the fate of humanity hanging in the balance?Our FacebookOur XOur InstagramInvestigate Earth Rumble

Tell me something, tell me something I haven't heard before. Because I'm restless and I'm dying to no more. Show me something, show me something I haven't seen before. Because I'm tired of the same boat's the same show. Hello and welcome to Investigate Earth Podcast. I am your host, Chad, and many of you should know my beautiful wife. Sherry. I always wonder how you're going to change it up just a little bit because we try to do that

because I don't know. Our intros are not that great, but thanks, Chad. Welcome to the podcast. I think we're going to have a really great show for you guys. Yeah. Great show is in, like, we're going to give you a lot of information. Great, like, show as in topic and subject and what actually is going to be the outcome of this is not good, right?

and actually over 300, I think we're like 310 episodes right now. This particular subject matter and episode is what kills me to the core over anything. Like anything. We can talk about politics. You can talk about Trump, whether you love or hate him, Biden, UFOs, Bigfoot, whatever. But this subject that we're going to talk about tonight is literally, I think personally, the most important thing that everyone should be talking about. Everyone should be raising a giant red flag across nations around the world.

And this is by far the most important thing. If you care about your freedom, if you care about being a free person, if you care about actually getting information that is factual or true, or at least being able to go to places to get factual information, this episode, this topic should be at literally the forefront of everything that you believe even think and feel because let me tell you something when I started reading about the online safety bill which is what we're going to be talking about tonight man it makes me very upset it makes me sad it makes me something feel just very very bad for humanity and from what I understand

it's really not blowing up anywhere no one's really talking about it this is a topic that is not a mainstream topic right now or it's not trending so much like it should be it's starting to you think about things that are happening like this, it should be trending. It should be blowing up. Yeah. And that's why we got to get it out there. Well, it's funny because we always know typically on this podcast, like what is going to blow up and what isn't, right? I mean, and usually it's the topics that are really, really viral. You know, it's those things that are like, for example, October 4th and the big conspiracy around that. And, you know, I don't know, like, if a massive murder happens, that just shakes the nation and every single news cast is talking about it.

Those things blow up. The problem with subjects like this, although they, in my opinion, are the absolute most important thing to humanity. They don't always necessarily blow up like they should, but hopefully you guys can change that for us, share this, do whatever you can to share this episode with anyone you care about, anyone that doesn't understand what is to come as far as their freedoms, whether they realize it or not. We're going to talk about tonight because that is what is about.

to happen. And it just so actually happens that Russell Brand is one of the ones that really kind of obviously started talking about this. And this recently just passed in a sweeping new surveillance and censorship measure, the online safety bill in the United Kingdom. And this is something that is massive. It is something that is huge. And we have so much to talk about. And talking about Russell Brand, what has ever become of these? these accusations about him. Have you heard anything else about this stuff going on? So the accusations are just that.

They're accusations. And as of right now, we actually have a Russell Brand episode to where we talked about that. We talked about his situation and the allegations that were brought upon him that happened many, many years ago, allegedly happened many, many years ago.

And so they're accusations because there have been no charges filed. there have been no official proceedings as far as to try to put him in prison. But the reality of this is, is that, you know, it's something that we talked about specifically on the Russell Brand episode. You guys can go listen to that episode if you not heard that, which that episode is blew up. But we kind of compared it a little bit to Andrew Tate,

although I do think it's two different things. There's two different scenarios. There are people that hate Andrew Tate and love Andrew Tate. There are people that hate Russell Brand and love Andrew, or love Russell Brand. But most people love Russell Brand now, except for people that want to go against what he is speaking out so boldly about, especially in his position, some huge position.

He was a big Hollywood actor. He was someone who's been in many blockbuster movies. Yes, he was promiscuous. Yes, he was all these things back in the day when he was a drug addict or whatever. But the reality is it wasn't until he started talking on the internet and had a massive platform of millions and millions of people. And there was one thing as I started following Russell Brand. And listen, I'll be honest.

I love what Russell Brand is doing. I love how he is talking on the internet, using his platform to make as many people aware as possible of what is actually going on in the world. Like the censorship, the tyrannization, the globalism, the big farmer, big corporate, big, all of this stuff. He's using his platform. He has decided that, hey, you know what? everything I've ever came from I want to use my future, what I am standing

for now for the betterment of people for humanity. And so I highly respect that. I've just never been someone personally that can really watch even a 15 minute video of his. And I don't know why that is. I just cannot get into it as much. But there was one thing I've always noticed. I would listen to like

three or four minutes segments. I would usually just listen to three or four minutes. Like the intro. segments, yeah. And there was one thing I would always notice is like every time he would always say how many followers he's got. And I remember I started watching him on YouTube when he was like, oh, you know, welcome to my, welcome my 400,000 awakening wonders. He would always say this. Right. And so it was like every episode, he'd be like, welcome my 800,000 awakening wonders, welcome my a million waking and wonders, welcome my two million, three million, four.

And it was just growing so massively, right? And so on top of it growing so massively with his platform and so fast, you had what he was talking about, which was he was going against the globalism. He was going against the big elites and the corporate. He was going against big pharma. He was exposing as much as he could with his platform as possible, which is exactly what we do. Now, he started obviously with a bigger platform. He is probably, well, I know he still has a bigger platform. Well, he's Hollywood or not.

But I respect him wholeheartedly for that. But at some point in time, I think people started to take notice, right? When the corporate elites and the globalist and all these people that were out there and said, guys, I don't know if you notice there are actors and people that are supposed to be a part of our system. They were supposed to have sold out their soul to the devil, basically. And now they're rising up and they are bringing on these millions and millions of people, these awakening wonders. We got to do something about this. You know, this was, I believe, potentially what happened with Andrew Tate.

This is really what's happening with Elon Musk right now. Elon Musk has always been a fixture of society, especially in the United States, but around the world. He's a genius of our time. He has put forth so much knowledge and expertise and so many things from Tesla to, which is electric vehicles, which the Democrats, you would think, would love him. Right, right. Which they always have, by the way. And then so he was really bringing forward the electric vehicle thing, right? And then SpaceX, where he has many government contracts.

And there's so many things that Elon Musk does that the government's always loved him. But when did the government start not loving him? Well, he's under more investigations. I think he's under about seven internal or not internal, but external government investigations. He's under investigations with SpaceX with Tesla, all this stuff. And the when that happened was when he said, I'm buying Twitter because I think that the future of humanity depends on freedom of speech.

Okay? And so you have this guy, which is literally, if you think about our opportunity to advance and explore the universe, to actually advance our civilization forward, like especially for people that love UFOs and all this stuff, and people wonder how the hell can a UFO or a extraterrestrial? life form travel from 10 million light years, 10 light years away, two light years away, how could they do that?

Well, they're probably not going to bring up people into investigations that have the capabilities of sending your civilization often to the galaxy because they value freedom of speech. That's something I've always thought about. It's like, how did some of these extraterrestrial life forms, if they're purely physical and I'm not going to get too deep on this, but how did they construct their civilization to not hinder themselves

by destroying themselves or by hindering themselves with political BS or all these things? And do they even have a civilization? That's another question. I don't know. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I think there are... I don't know, but that's getting deep, so... It is.

Yeah. It is. But guys, before we get into this, I do want to encourage all of you to follow us on our social media platforms. We have a Facebook, which I got to say, I don't know what exactly the reason is for this, but we've actually got more engagement on our Facebook lately

than we have our X, which is X is supposedly freedom of speech. But I think Elon has a lot of people behind the scenes that are doing a lot of dirty things that he doesn't realize because let's face it, Elon does not know what an algorithm is. He knows what an algorithm is. He doesn't understand, you know, how to look at code and see what the algorithm is actually doing.

And I think that's going to be something, a major issue for Elon going forward, is trying to figure out how we're going to get people, to actually value freedom of speech and all that stuff. But we do still have an X. And one of the ways that we can surpass the algorithm is you guys just follow us and check up on us. We post a lot of daily content, a lot of daily things, personal things. We do that all the time.

And so many of you are going over to our Facebook. You're reaching out. You're commenting on our photos and this and that. We encourage all of you to continue to do that. We do have a substack. We have all this stuff. And do it while you can, right? Do it while you can.

And we have a Rumble. Yeah, we have a Rumble as well. And, you know, Rumble is in, Rumble is in jeopardy with all these acts. And this is, by the way, we are somewhat specifically going to be talking about the Online Safety Act or the Online Safety Bill, which specifically talks about the UK. But there is multinational, multi-country bills basically passing about the same time. As soon as it goes through with Europe, it's coming to a lot. us. Absolutely. So the UK has passed is controversial online censorship act known as the online safety bill. Now the bill, one of the widest sweeping attacks on privacy and free speech in

Western democracy will become law. The bill seeks to shield internet users, especially youth, quote unquote youth, right? This is what they're using. We got to protect the kids from the slingshots of malicious online content. But the bill goes beyond forcing platforms to remove illegal content. It calls upon social media giants to act as custodians, safeguarding users against ill-intent messages, cyberbullying, and explicit material. The bill is shrouded and avail of safetyism and pays only lip service to privacy and free speech rights.

We cannot cower from highlighting the bill's overt undertone of censorship, veering into a territory where freedom of speech and privacy must be sacrificed at the altar of digital safety. Michelle Donnellan, Technology Secretary, voiced her support for the bill, Brandon as an enormous step forward in our mission to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. Under the proposed law, social media corporations will be forced into swift action, not just for a moving violative content, but also for hindering its emergence, right? So, as this lady says, Michelle Donnellan, you know, she says this is the greatest step forward in our mission to make the UK the safest place ever to be online. Right.

And of course, in the bill, some of the first text you'll start to see is about shrouding kids or shielding kids, I guess, from malicious content. Right. But it's not about the kids. Right. I know. But which, that is a big deal in the schools nowadays. They are trying to prevent bullying in any facet that it's available, including cyberbullying. And it does happen on a daily basis.

So I get that, but I think what they're doing is putting an umbrella on the whole entire internet instead of trying to make it safer for kids. You know, when you're an adult and you go on the internet, you should know for yourself what's going on and what's not going on, you know? Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, and the reality is is that, you know, there's many ways to shield kids from malicious activity online. Actually, very simple ways with age checks and verified accounts and all of these things to where we verify if you're on this account, you are this age. And if you are this age or under 18 or whatever, you are not allowed to watch this or what, depending upon your parents, right? You could have parental controls. You can have all of this stuff to fully, completely shield your kids from malicious or bullying activities.

online. And a lot of that, by the way, goes back to parenting. I mean, since when, in reality, by the way, did it become the government's job to parent and the parent's job to just stand by, right? And this is what it seems like is more and more and more up. Even the online safety act for the UK saying, we're going to shield, don't worry, we're going to parent your kids. We're going to, we're going to make sure that your kids don't get this or don't receive this or don't receive that. It's bullshit because they care zero percent about the kids. I promise you. With this bill, they absolutely care zero percent about kids whatsoever.

Yeah, they're going after the adults. And I have to also mention any kids that are supplied a computer through a school district, the whole school district censors anything they want to on their district internet thing. Yeah, for sure. You know, so they're not going to see things. that they shouldn't, you know, while they're on a school internet, you know, access. Yeah. No, I completely agree. So, you know, like I said, Michelle Donnellin, she voiced her support for the bill. Now, the implementation sword will be wielded by Offcom, the communications regulator, with the law setting a stringent punishment pathway for noncompliers, inclusive of colossal fines and even going to jail.

So you're going to get fines and going to. to jail for what? For just saying things that are against this bill, right? This is literally Orwellian. This is Nazi Germany type shit, right? It's something that like if you say the wrong thing against this bill, which by the way, a lot of this is very gray area or, you know, they cast this big veil over everything, then yes, you can be fined and you can also go to jail.

And this has already been happening somewhat in the UK. Now the bill further pioneers new criminal. offenses to its roster, like cyber flashing and the distribution of manipulated explicit content or deep fake pornography. The bill imbues the government with tremendous power, the capability to demand the online services employed government-approved software to scan through user content, including photos, files, and messages to identify illegal content. Non-compliance can result in severe penalties such as facing criminal charges.

From a free speech and anti-censorship perspective, the legislation is fundamentally very disturbing. Critics argue the bill could enhance potential censorship of the pretext of safety. Now, the backdoor scanning system poses significant threats. It may be exploited by those with malicious intent, mishandled, which would lead to false positives, results in unwarranted accusations of child abuse and many other things. Go ahead. Okay, my question is this. If they're trying to censor these people that are looking at porn,

that's illegal, blah, blah, blah, and they're trying to get these sex traffickers. Which is not what they're doing. Yeah, but let's just say they are. Because by the way, these people are. Why would they ban it? Why would they ban that? I would keep it like awake and out there so I could go bust them. You know what I'm saying?

Yeah, I mean, if you try to ban it, then they're going to use other avenues to do their sex trafficking. Yeah. Do you understand what I'm saying? No, I get what you're saying. I mean, but that's not really... I know that's not the main thing. This is what they're using as their excuse. Yeah.

I mean, which makes zero sense. I mean, I get it. And the reality is to scan through this. I mean, you go back to the Patriot Act, which was after 9-11. I mean, that essentially, you know, people like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden. Edward Snowden is hiding out in Russia because he was one of the ones that came forward and said, guys, just so you know, the government knows everything.

that you're doing at all times. They are spying in you at all times. You have zero privacy anymore. Edward Snowden had to run to Russia because he exposed that. Julian Assange, he created a website, which was a website that whistleblowers or whoever could share information that was against the people that the government was going against the people. And Julian Assange is incarcerated. Edward Snowden would be incarcerated, if not dead. had he had been found in the United States. And this is all because these people, these whistleblowers, you know, if they would have come forward, well, no, sorry.

This is all because they wanted to shield the people, right? The people that, and by the way, I feel like anyone that works for our government, whether it be FBI and CIA or whoever, we should have everyone, if you think about it, if the government actually cares about the people and the government is there to protect, us and there to make sure that we have our freedoms, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and all these things, then we need a million Edward Snowden's in office of every single three-letter agency, including FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, the ATF, the everybody. We should have all of them just like Edward Snowden. And as soon as the government steps over its boundaries to infringe on

the people, then that person needs to come forward immediately to expose it to the world. But you see what happens when people like Edward Snowden does that. But in unfortunately, too, they're going to use things like sex trafficking, porn, or whatever to say this is the reason why we have to stop this. But we know that they could care less about sex trafficking. Actually, they love, it seems like they love sex trafficking because we think about Epstein and how they covered that whole damn thing up with many politicians, many elites around the world that were involved in that. They used Jislein Maxwell, which, by the way, was a big part of that, but they used her as a scapegoat. It's very much like Andrew Colmo with the COVID-19 thing when, you know, yes, he basically killed millions of elderly people in a nursing home, potentially, potentially, right, to get up the numbers of COVID deaths. We don't know.

But what we do know is that he did that. And then what did they do? Well, they said, oh, well, he's a sexual, not a slaughter or abuser, but a harassment. He's sexual harassment. So let's just go ahead and usher him off into the sunset. So we don't talk about this shit that really happened. in New York. Right.

So, but what I'm saying, I guess, is you have to let everything go through the internet or nothing. That's the way this has to work. If you want freedom of speech and access to the internet... But they don't want that. You're missing the point. No, I'm saying if people want that, then they have to let that go through. But that's not what they want.

And that's why they're putting these regulations on everyone. Yeah, I think you're just giving a spoiler alert here, which is like, yes, we're about to be tyrannized around the world. Yeah, exactly. That's what I'm saying. They're using this. Yes, this is what they're using. I think you're not understanding what I'm saying.

No, I get exactly what you're saying. I'm just saying, yes, the end of this podcast is going to say, we're all going to be tyrannized. Yes. Yes. They're going to use this to take away our rights. Yes. I totally get it. Yes.

So I just want to bring forth, like, the process of that before we get into that full Now, these alarm and flaws render the online safety bill incompatible with the end-to-end encryption, which is a staple for ensuring user privacy and security and human rights. The UK government has subtly conceded that it might not harass some elements of this law to their full potential, and during the conclusion, or sorry, the concluding discussion about the bill, a representative confirmed that the government would only order scans of user files

when technically feasible. And these orders will be subject to compatibility with the UK and European human rights laws. The acknowledgement seems a subtle retreat from a previously aggressive stance taken by the same representative. On the same day of these declarations, it surfaced that the UK government

conceded privately that technology capable of examining end-to-end encrypted messages while observing privacy rights do not exist, which is bullshit because they do. But citizens who value their privacy shouldn't have to rely on weak assurances from the government. The official safeguarding of privacy rights should be a priority rather than relying on

murmurs or amendments that the government should offer comprehensive assurance through clear regulations and explicit protection policies for end-to-end encryption. The bill, as it stands, allows the government to scan messages and photos posing significant threats to security and privacy to internet users. These powers are enshrined in Clause 122 of the bill. Several end-end encrypted services providers like WhatsApp, Signal, and UK-based element have threatened to pull out their services from the UK if OffCon demands examination of encrypted messages, an extreme but important move. And this reaction is a testament to the perceived invasive nature of the online safety bill. Now, there's many things out there that are end-to-end encryption, which says that you are not allowed to look at these messages.

and I think a lot of people get the understanding or I guess the assumption that when it's end-to-end encryption, it means that there's no way a government can look at that information. But that is not true, guys. I promise you this, these apps and these things that come out and say end-to-end encryption, it's completely encrypted, you could say whatever you wanted to on there, you could go on there and threaten this or threaten that about the government.

It ain't going to happen because I promise you, if you don't think that especially I'll give an example in the United States if you don't think the Department of Defense or Department of Justice or CIA has ways to monitor those apps you're crazy and by the way those are mostly going to be the apps they're going to monitor

because they know that if when people think they're encrypted they're going to find all kinds of shit they want to really find on those apps because they think they're safe and can say anything they want and not get in trouble yeah you're 100% right but what I was saying to your point

yes, you were right. And I don't want to say you're not right. I was just saying you're too right, because that's what we're getting at. It's like, yes, there's all these things they could do, right? There's all these things. If they wanted to do this, they could do this. And they wouldn't have to do all these other things. And the reality of this is it will be full tyranny. I mean, what is the way that, let me ask you, do you, what is the, I guess, the biggest way you feel freedom in some ways? Like, is freedom, The ability to go to your, to a grocery store? Or is it ability to do that? I mean, maybe not being in jail for some people as a freedom, right?

But I think we've lost so much, I guess, about what freedom is. Because if you look at the bill of rights, there's a lot of freedoms that are being infringed. Well, I mean, it's, you know, freedom of your rights, your freedom of speech, your freedom to go outside, your freedom to go into any store you want to. Your freedom to wear a mask or not wear a mask. Your freedom to do as you choose, to believe in what you believe, your religion, everything. Those are all the freedoms that, you know, could be changed because of this bill. Yeah, there's a lot of stuff. And in particular, you know, with the disinformation, misinformation, all these campaigns.

That mal-information, which is like true information, it's just they don't want you to see it. Right. It is inconvenient to their narrative. I want to play a clip here real quick. I actually saw this clip. It's a few minutes long, but it's good. I wanted to play this to you guys so that you, I guess, I don't know, it was pretty good. And I've actually seen this.

I'm pretty sure this lady is actually a Democrat. And I'd seen some of her other videos, but it's like she posted this video and I found it in her. And I was like, I'm going to play it. So here it is. I want you to hear it. what she has a say here. Important things you need to know.

Number one, the talking heads out there will tell you, this bill is all about protecting our children online. This is about protecting them from pedos online. And you'll be like, oh yes, that's a good thing. I want to protect my child from that. But there's a whole bunch of other stuff that's being shoved in behind the bit that you're being told. This basically means that your speech can be policed everywhere.

Inside your own home, user to user on WhatsApp, on signal, on telegram, your speech can be spied on, recorded, put through algorithms, and your speech will be policed in every which way. And then the definitions for what you're doing wrong have just been absolutely obliterated to include absolutely everything. So your speech can be legal, but if it's harmful, you will be in trouble. trouble. So someone can just decide that what you said was, even though legal, it's harmful. And then that comes with a bunch of penalties and punishments. And the definition is crazy. It's based on harmful as designated by the Secretary of State. So you don't know what it is. It's just plucked out the a bit of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State only has to have reasonable grounds to believe it's harmful. Reasonable grounds. Well, that can be anyone, someone

more powerful decides. And then they just have to believe it would be harmful. Just believe, how do you police a belief and that it might be at risk of having harm to someone else, even if that harm is meant indirectly, even if it's physical or psychological, indirectly, and there was only a risk of it and someone only had to believe that that's what you were trying to do, and they only have to have reasonable grounds that you were trying to be harmful, even if it was legal in the first place. Do you see, it's a catch-all for everything. You wonder what just happened to Russell Brand? Well, this would be the perfect kind of law. for enforcing anything on anyone if it's believed that what you said may have caused some

sort of perceived harm to someone. It's kind of a continuation of libel laws that would change just to be able to take away my family home. There are protections in place for news organisations. So if you're a big news organisation and you will tow the line, you are somewhat protected. But if you're me, if you're an independent vlogger or a blogger or a citizen journalist, there are no protections for you. And of course, in Canada, where the government pays the large organisations, it means that they will keep towing the government line in order to stay protected, whereas we will be utterly thrown to the wolves. And perhaps finally, it's the punishments, the punishments in no way map what is supposed to be a crime based on what someone thinks you may have said that might have

been perceived by someone else to cause harm. This is an absolutely. madness and this just passed in the UK under the guise of online safety we can agree i think here in the UK that speech is the new alcohol and truly we live in a time of prohibition absolutely yeah and that's true and it's not just in the UK even though we're specifically talking about the online safety bill here right and that is just in the UK right now but we feel like it's going everywhere? Well, yeah, it is. And we're going to talk about that in just a minute. Because there are many bills that are being passed and in the works to be passed on many countries. Now, this is really a new way. This is a way for the government to, and look, I want to mention this and I don't want to, you know, say anything necessarily.

For example, the Alex Jones, Sandy Hook bill to where he's what, on the hook for a billion dollars or place. us now or whatever it is. And it was like, it seemed like it was a concerted effort to completely screw him. They got, they kind of got everybody together, made sure that, hey, this is a guy that is speaking out, has been right about many, many things with the government. Throughout the years, he's been, you know, a broadcaster. And this is our way. This is finally our way to, you know, completely destroy.

And yeah, destroy who he talks to, his organization. and they're desperately trying to do that. He's still on air. And thank God he's still on air. Whether you agree or don't agree with him. It is his right of freedom of speech. It's his opinion. And there's a big difference in defamation and freedom of speech.

And it comes with this. It's like they're using these examples like Sandy Hook. Like so many of these other things, they're using these examples to try to completely hinder and censor freedom of speech by saying, well, it's harmful. harmful. This hurts somebody's feelings because this was their opinion. And whether or not you agree with Alex Jones or not, which I don't agree with Alex Jones's stance on that particular thing. But whether you agree with it or not, I mean, he should have the right to say it. He should have the right to his opinion on whether or not something happened or not. And as soon as you start trying to bring people to a court to where you can destroy their lives because of what their opinion is on something, That is very, very dangerous. And so now they're taking it from, essentially, from having to coordinate all these people to get in lawsuits together to sue someone to destroy someone, which is what they're kind of trying to do through rape allegations potentially with Andrew Tate, with Andrew Tate, Russell Brand.

There's been so many. I mean, so, so many. Look at what Trump's going through, whether you believe it or not. They're using the legal systems the best way they can. But the easiest way to do this is just to create laws that are so vague that if you say something that we say harm society. Right. Like, for example, they're trying to say that Trump incited an insurrection by literally just having a speech about his, I guess, dissent on what he believed, how the election went. But the thing is, as all the propaganda and all the media said he incited it.

He told people to go march to the Capitol, you know, be proud, be loud, whatever. But he said protest peacefully. Yeah. And that's a thing. But the reality is that a Democrat can say way worse. And they do all the time. Oh, what's, and nothing ever comes from. Maxine Waters.

Yeah. The Maxwell lady or whatever. But it's not just Maxine Waters. I mean, you got to remember Kathy Griffin when she held a Trump head that was bloody and literally decapitated head. I mean, to a picture and everyone praised her and all this shit. I mean, the reality is is that we are against a good versus evil.

We are. And, you know. But it's also a good, you know, what's for the goose is what's for the gander. If you can have freedom of speech on this side, you've got to have freedom of speech on that side. I mean, you can't just filter one freedom of speech. Yeah.

And that goes with, yeah. But, okay, this is my question about this whole thing, what they're using, like the porn stuff, or trafficking, you know, sex trafficking. Yeah. Isn't that illegal around the world? Well, it is illegal. But, I mean, unless you're involved in it and you're a part of the system, then it's hidden.

It's pushed under a rug. It's it is a conspiracy to make sure that no one knows. No one knows and nothing comes out about it. But what we know as a world, I think around the world, sex trafficking is illegal. Of course. Porn is illegal. Of course it is. So why can't they just filter out that because it's illegal?

Well, they can and they could, but the reality of it is that they need a law in place that gray areas, a lot of things. Like, for example, what the lady just said. And I want to mention to you, I don't know 100%. I'm pretty sure that was a girl I saw that had some Democratic views in the past. I don't know. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Sorry. I don't want to say that for sure.

But because it would just be hard for me to believe that, and I don't mean this in a bad way, but it'd be hard for me to believe that Democrat would actually say something against censorship of speech. Sorry. But anyways, it just kind of goes back to the point of, you know, this is not about protecting kids. This is not at all. It's in, and from what the girl or lady just said, this is encompassing everything. This is that if, you know, for example, what is misinformation? What is disinformation?

We learned a lot about that during COVID. And then we talked about and have heard a lot about hate speech, right? What is hate speech classifies? Yeah. If you say factual things now on the Internet, which is hate speech, it's a fact. So that gets into the gray zone or whatever. That included hate speech. Yeah, but I mean, but you could say, you know, I'm not going to call you a boy if you're a girl.

Or I'm not going to do this. That's hate speech. Or if you say something against the trans movement, or you say something against the LGBTQ, or if you say something against BLM, right? Or Antifa or the KKK even, but it's not, of course they're not going to, you know. But you know what I'm saying. Right. It is against groups that they protect and the groups that push their agenda or people that push their agenda or things that fit their narrative. because they know they have a large portion of populations based on ideological conditions

based on narratives and based on belief systems and based on almost religions in some ways. Right. They have a lot of those people on board with them to almost like religiousize it to where it's like if I'm gay or if I'm lesbian or if I'm trans or if I'm black or if I'm if I'm a Spanish or if I'm a Spanish or if I am this, from that, I have to vote Democrat because, or I have to vote against the Republicans or the conservatives or the Patriots or whoever these people are. I have to vote against the people that are saying, no, we want our freedom. Like, we want freedom. We want freedom of speech. We want the things that our country was founded on. And yet they make you believe that, look, yes, let's censor their speech.

Let's do all these things. Let's get these bills in the power so they will shut the hell up. And then all these people are in support of this, although it is, in the end, going to be against them too. Oh, it's against everybody. And that's a thing. We either take it all or we take nothing. That's the way freedom of speech has to work. Yes, absolutist or not.

And, you know, that's why I was asking about, okay, well, there's a law against porn all over the world. Why couldn't they just censor that portion? What do you mean, like child porn? Yeah, child porn, for example. Well, child porn is never going to be censored with an internet. I mean, or, I mean, because regardless, there is a dark web. There's all these crazy things. You're never going to fully censor the internet, right?

I mean, it's just not possible. But what they can do, right? And this is their main goal. They can censor companies like Spotify. They can censor companies. And I think really in my honest opinion, I think they're after the podcasters. I think they're after the people that are making massive gains. as far as popularity and numbers and all this stuff behind the scenes on the podcast platforms

that are not out here lying. We're not out here lying. We're telling the truth. We're saying our opinion. We're saying our opinion on these things because this is what it appears, but this is what they desperately do not want. They do not want people like us to grow bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. Right, because they don't want people to believe or follow or whatever.

No, they do. But it goes back to this. it's either if you if you accept this law you're going to have everything censored or you don't accept this law and nothing censored so it's kind of like a here it is right but it goes back to my point for example they're using the um i'm going to go back to the sex trafficking thing especially children why wouldn't you want to keep that open to find that IP addresses for these people that are doing these things and arrest them. Because that's not what they're after.

But I'm saying that's what they should be after. Yeah, I know, but that's not what they're after. Because they have all those controls. They're not after those people. Okay? I mean, they're really not. They're not after people sex trafficking in and doing all this shit. I mean, some people, some organizations may be.

But even that's become politicized. I mean, literally, like breaking up sex trafficking rings around the world and globalization-type governments now is very politicized. Because, you know, there are, I mean, I have personally spoken to people. And I'm not going to go into who it is, which I've asked her to come on our podcast before. I don't know if you remember this person or not. She was with a three-letter agency in the United States government. And she even said, she even said, like, things are politicized to where they will deter you from going after sex trafficking rings.

And that's why she left the three-letter agency because she felt like. Something was very corrupt going on. They deterred the agents from going after certain things because potentially it involved something way bigger. Well, it involves the government. And whenever it involves anyone in the government, they're going to hide that. Oh, absolutely. And that's the problem with this whole thing. The government wants to censor what we hear.

Absolutely. But they want their stuff to be okay. Yeah, it's like they want to put you in time out while they do whatever the hell they want to do, right? I mean, that's essentially what it is. Now, the government, in particular, the UK government's military, arm for the online safety bill, are now openly using the term warfare. And I find this very interesting. Because, you know, are we now at war with, you know, our own governments, essentially? And especially if you're in the UK, are you at war with your own government?

If you speak against the narrative, I mean, that's dangerous territory. Right. Indirectly we are. Yeah, that you have to let slip into your lives through a loud. in this bill to pass and challenge your question. It is something that they are using. Right here is an article adapting to warfare in the information age. Warfare is rapidly evolving and the ability to compete in the information domain is critical.

We must develop our capabilities and find novel ways of operating to counter our adversaries. But I think who they're really thinking is an adversary now is you. It is you, the people of your government, or you the people of your country. Who we are. The 77th Brigade, sorry, is a hybrid unit of regulators and reservists to specialist skills to combat new forms of warfare and the information environmental for the defense of the UK and its overseas territories. This comes from the British Army Army.mod.uk. But, you know, this kind of, a lot of this stuff started coming out after this online safety bill. They started really pushing this term warfare with online, with online.

realm and a lot of people are asking, are we at warfare with our own government now? Because guys, you're about to be tyrannized. I hate to say it. This sucks. And I know it sucks to hear, but it is what it is. I want to play you at Russell Brand's little intro to his episode the other day, which is probably what we're going to title this episode, because he is the first one that came out with the video on it. So we will probably title it that. But let's hear what Russell Brand has to say about the situation. Here you go. And it couldn't be more peculiar. and informative if you're willing to look at the facts objectively. For example, in the UK, a new online safety bill has been introduced that makes it essentially impossible for big tech platforms

to encourage, house and indeed permit and facilitate voices that contradict the official narrative on a whole range of subjects, including but not limited to, health and pandemics, war and military industrial complex matters, mainstream media and legacy media narratives, and essentially the corporate agenda of the state you can add almost infinitely to this list because that's what the bill allows to happen essentially the idea of conversation and discourse is being shut down curated controlled now remember in the pandemic period at the very beginning there were legitimate voices from well-seasoned experts who were saying things like oh is this going to be safe and what are the consequences of this and what about this particular measure or this lockdown or that kind

of conversation was happening many of the things that were being discussed one example being just natural immunity or the Wuhan-Lah bleak theory were censored at the beginning because of existing collaborations between the state and big tech. In your country, in my country, in countries across the world. That's what globalism means, the ability to facilitate a ubiquitous global agenda without democracy. There won't be a variety of results, as would happen in a democracy, because people would have all different perspectives, opinions, needs, requirements, cultures, etc. You would see the opposite of hegemony. Hedgemany is now being legislated for in the UK, but it's not limited to that. is introducing a law that's yet more draconian.

Every one of the Five Eyes countries, that's the term used by Edward Snowden to describe Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK, the Anglophonic countries, they collaborate and share each other's data in order to bypass spying restrictions in their own native land. Each of them are introducing online laws

that make it difficult for us to communicate openly. Now, as it is always the case. Always the case. These laws are facilitated using things that any sane person would agree with, like hate speech. wants hate speech, do they? Absolutely not. No one wants exploitation of children. No one wants violence or the exploitation. Of course, that's just standard. Everybody agrees with that.

Everybody believes in that. And that's why those ideas are used to usher, forward and through measures that will ultimately lead to the inhibition and prohibition of free speech and opposition and dissent. Just ask yourself this question. Is there a reason that you don't trust the government? Is there a reason you don't trust the legacy media? Is that reason because you don't think they have your best interests at heart when it comes to pandemics, when it comes to war, When it comes to the way they report on any story, when it comes to the way they govern, the way they spend your taxpayer dollars, pounds, or whatever currency is relevant in your nation, do you trust them anymore? Are you beginning to detest and despise them? Is there a reason for that?

And is that reason fundamentally that you cannot trust them? Because they do not tell you the truth. And they do not operate on your behalf. They are operating according to a different agenda. This is not conspiracy theory. These are facts. All right, there you go. That was the intro.

And he makes a lot of great points, sir. A lot of them. I mean, and the reality of this is, the bill is, it's really geared towards, let's forget about the kids thing, right? It's geared towards pandemics. It's geared towards medicine. It's geared towards military industrial complex. It's geared towards the dissemination of information based on those things. So, you know, we saw this with COVID.

We saw that instead of promoting health and promoting vitamins and promoting things that studies were showing were actually saving people's lives, you know, you can. You go on back to old Nate Jones on this with old clear how, you know, that company is still being sued by the FTC because, you know, they had studies that proved that nasal spray actually killed COVID. And instead of the government saying, hey, we, we love your studies. Yeah, instead, let's buy it for everyone and send it out to everyone. Yeah, but instead, they're like, we're going to sue the shit out of you because this works and we do not want that to happen. I mean, and this is the reality. This is what we are facing. And so when this online safety bill, and there are other bills, which we're going to get into in just a minute,

when these bills, what they're aimed to do is they're aimed to take away discourse. They're aimed to take away conversation, discussion. They're aimed to take away your ability to actually figure out what the factual information is for you, your family, or others. They don't want you to know whether vitamin D works for colds. They only want you to know whatever the big pharma is coming out with for whatever it is that They're going to make billions of dollars on. They don't want you to believe whether or not it was the United States's fault or the Ukraine's fault or whoever's fault for the reason why Russia potentially invaded Ukraine. They don't ever want you to know that.

They only want one narrative, one agenda, one message. They don't want you to know why we went into Iraq. They don't want you to know what really happened in 9-11. They don't want you to know any of these things. And they want to put it into it once and for all. They do not want any conversation ever again about this. And we've talked about this on the podcast before. talked about over the past year especially to where we said, and I've questioned this. I'm like,

what is the government that is the most lying, manipulative, corrupt piece of shit on this planet? A lot of these people in the government, a lot of these people, what are they going to do with the information age, with people actually finding out the truth because of how corrupt they are? And so the answer to that question is exactly what we are talking about today. They figure it out. Online safety bills, all these other bills and laws that they're putting into place. This is past in the UK, guys. This is going to go into place in 45 days in the UK. This is in place.

This affects Spotify. So for those UK listeners that are listening on your Spotify right now, this affects you right now. This is going to affect Spotify. I can guarantee you that Spotify is having massive meetings right now with corporates and whoever to figure out how they're going to handle this. because, and this is not just the UK. Canada just passed a very similar law to where people have to register with Canada's government. They have to basically abide by their regulations and broadcasting rules like we're a radio station now or all these things where you can't talk about this, you can't talk about that.

And if you really think about like the FCC, for example, in the United States and how they kind of foster the discord. They fostered the discourse or the communication initiative in the United States. You always wonder why, you know, back in the day, everyone always thought, well, it was because we don't allow cussing, right? I mean, that was a big thing. It's like, oh, the FCC's there is just to make sure you don't say fuck, right? Or shit or ass or what it was. Chad, stop. Okay, sorry.

Well, you know what? I'm taking advantage right now, okay? You just want to say the cuss words. Sorry, guys. Sorry, if you had kids. Sorry. But we've always thought that's really what the FCC was about. But what were the FCC really always about? I think the FCC was really just a way that it was like the online safety bill.

It was, I mean, how many radio stations, by the way, do you hear talking about the corruptness of government, talking about JFK shit, talking about all the things that government actually does? What radio stations do you hear do that? What broadcast stations do you hear doing that? Zero. basically zero. I mean, you can get away with certain things that's so old, like especially your history channel or some, or some thing. But the reality is, is that I think the FCC was like their first attempt of discourse, or silence of discourse and silence of narrative from the people. And now you have the new age to where they have algorithms. They have AI. And everyone was so

excited by AI. They're like, oh my God, man. Like, I can write this and it can make it better. I can do this and to make it better. Everybody's so excited about AI, but what people forget is that our government has way more powers with AI, and we are so screwed. And they can use AI against all of us. And they're going to. And they already are.

They already are. Yeah. We try to use AI a couple of times, and we're like, oh my gosh, the government already got a hold of AI. Well, it's not even that. Like, right? I mean, really, AI is new to us.

It's not new to government. Because even the term algorithm, you know, we've heard that term for a very long time. We've heard it for really since social media companies came around 10, 15 years, you know, ago. But then, you know, somewhere around there. And so algorithms was really the first AI, just so everyone understands that. I mean, we're just now like, oh, we got chat GBT where we can type in some stuff and it brings us back these results. Okay. but the government's had AI for 15 maybe plus years

and whatever their AI systems are are far more advanced than anything you're ever going to have access to. There's a reason why that these governments are pushing for regulation on AI. We can't let AI take over the world. What does that really mean, though? I mean, do you think we're like someone just going to create AI that's just going to say too much real shit to where it's like they figure out how to build a robot

that's going to defeat their country or something. I mean, but the reality is I don't think I don't think that's what they're really scared of. No, I don't think they are, but I think it could happen. I think the government is scared of a battle between their advanced and smart AI and the people's ability to utilize AI. That's what I believe.

I don't believe they're worried at all about like, oh, we got to rig it. Because if the government themselves, the Congress and Senate and all these people are saying, we got to regulate AI. Regulate AI for what, though? I mean, because if we think about it, you have unlimited access to AI.

Your DARPA and CIA and clandestine-type, you know, secret government programs that are utilizing AI for God knows what, potentially, you know, robotic soldiers and all this crazy shit, advanced technology to where it scans and understands exactly what you say to someone in particular

in that particular second are you calling for regulation for these secret programs or are you calling for regulation against AI for the people? Yeah and that brings me to that movie like it's just so scary. I thought would this ever happen

you know when that really happened I'm talking about the Terminator for example. Well yeah but you're going way back but you got to think about I robot. I robot. Yeah, but think way back to the Terminator. Like how many people thought that would be even possible back then?

And now it really is coming possible. Yeah. It's already here. I mean, it is absolutely 100% already here. But, you know, when we hear about, and this is not an often talked about take, right? I've seen a lot of people. Elon Musk has come out and said, we got to regulate AI. There's all these people that are coming out

We got to regulate AI To make sure that It doesn't do this or this or this But the reality is guys Is that we're not regulating The government is not calling for regulation of AI For the government It's for the people

Yeah because they're not They have no idea Some of the major issues We have in this world Is these secretive programs In the government Exactly It's just like the UFO program

Absolutely and we have no clue There's no oversight There's no law They're basically cowboys in the old West back in the day where they made the law, and this is the way it is, and whatever happens, happens. Are we desperately trying to push for regulation against these dark and deep secret companies or government organizations that are going to potentially utilize AI to potentially even destroy their own people? I mean, this is what we don't understand. We're using words like warfare. We're using words like we're going to imprison you.

if you say the wrong thing nowadays, but yet also these government entities, these government three-letter agencies, these globalist pushes, the World Economic Forum, I guarantee you that a lot of their closed-door meetings are talking about this. You know, how are we going to make sure

that AI does not hurt us with our advanced AI to where it could potentially be a competitor to where the people actually have power? Right, exactly. But how we're going to use AI against the people, too. Yeah, that's exactly what they're also talking about. But they're, you know, the governments and the globalist movement are desperate to

make sure that you as a person never gain power. You never gain more power than they could possibly even give you. They're going to give you a little sip of power, right? A little sip of freedom. That's all you're going to get nowadays. And before long, that sip's going to be taken away. You're going to be in a cage. And maybe every five or six days, you might have a little freedom if they just feel like you deserve freedom, but they're not going to give you freedom because they don't have to because they rule the world,

and this is part of the online safety bill, this is part of all these other bills, and it's not just one bill. I want to play one more clip too before we kind of close this out, but this is a good clip as well. I listened this, and I thought I was good. I think you guys would enjoy it.

But there's a lot of stuff. This guy actually put in the safety bill in terms of what the text was. Oh my God. Did he put it into AI? Yeah, into AI. Oh my gosh. And so, and I've actually done this with stuff before as well. Yeah, we've done this a lot of times.

I'm like, can you... Not exactly this thing, but something better, you know, something else. But here's what he had to say about, to check this out. Experiment a little bit the other night with Chap-GPT, the AI tool that a lot of people are using. You can decipher through just legal. jargon that us plebs don't really understand. So I put through the entire, I think it was 309,000-worded bill. After doing that, I started to ask it questions on whether it would infringe freedom of speech. And the results I got was actually really shocking. One of them

was, I counted 26 sections of the entire bill could potentially infringe freedom of speech and expression. It gives offcom a lot of authority and power over to the internet, as opposed to broadcasting. There was one thing that was sneaked in there that I didn't know beforehand, and it was to do with filming migration. Citizen journalists who are in Dover, for example, and that are filming the migrants coming over,

that will affect citizen journalism too. Problem is it's so broad, it's so vague. They talk about things like hate speech, and who defines what hate speech is. Well, the snoopers, government snoopers. Yes, exactly, and it shouldn't be, it's not one person, it's very subjective. You know, what I find hateful,

is completely different to what you find. The other problem is it gives a lot of people online the reporting power. So you know, we know about mass reporting. Yes, that's a real problem. Yeah, it's a big problem online. If they just mass report someone that they don't like, it grants them way more power. Yeah, so that was that.

Yeah, the migration thing. Is that interesting? It mentioned that in particular. Yeah, you looked at me like, wow, that's crazy. No, it is because, I mean, it's just interesting. You know, when you look at our border crisis in the United States, And not just the United States, this is in the UK. It's everywhere.

Oh, it's everywhere. Yeah, it's absolutely everywhere around the world. There's migration going on everywhere, and I think that's on purpose. Well, we know it's on purpose. I mean, I think. We've talked about this in other episodes. But it's very interesting that mentions this in this bill that is trying to basically outlaw any videoing of mass migration. So, for example, if you go to the border and video people migrating to another country,

I'm talking about illegal people that are coming across your border unhinged illegally, no documents, no tests, no nothing. You don't know if you're a terrorist, a criminal, nothing. It's illegal in this bill, technically, to video this, right? So, you know, this is something we've talked about many times as well. But why would it be illegal? That's what I don't get. Like, why would it be?

Because they're showing true factual evidence. Because they have a... an agenda with the mass migration. And, you know, it goes back to globalism. It does. Period. I know. And we see migration happening all around the world every day. Illegal migration. Yes, but what we have to understand is, and this is something we've said so many times,

and I feel like I'm beating my head in the wall by saying this again. And this all goes back to this as well. I mean, the fact that even mentions mass migration, right? The fact that we've talked many times about how a new world order, a one world government could exist. The only way that a one world government will exist is that if you throw away and strip away everything that the sovereign countries once were, that they were proud of, that they took pride in, the things that made them the country they were, you've got to strip that shit away. You have to make it no longer America. You have to make it no longer the U.K. you have to make it no longer these countries.

You have to just infiltrate everyone and anyone that could give a shit about your country or not, never had any value or anything about your history or your past or any of this stuff. And you've got to make it to where no one gives a shit about any of that anymore. Because then when you make it that way, then you have voters that are going to vote for very authoritarian type things.

They don't give a damn about where your country came from. They can utilize. And even, it's not even really vote. I don't think. I think as a part of a very scam system as far as, you know, electoral college type stuff, how they dictate electoral colleges in elections and all these things. But it's just basically a way of taking away your nationalism, taking away your patriotism as a country, taking away what you once knew as, hey, this is why we're America.

We are proud of America. And by the way, I'm not saying that, like, people that migrate from somewhere else or whatever that come here legally. Right. That's not wrong. Yes. And that's what America's been about is a nation of immigrants. The whole problem is everyone, everywhere around the world, we're just opening borders

everywhere and letting people just migrate to make it not. They're making it confusing. That's what they're doing. They're making it not the countries anymore. They're making it like no country. Yeah, they're making it, okay, think for example you have, say for in your brain, right, for this next week, you have five things you want to accomplish, right? And you have your focus on these five things. And all of a sudden, someone opens up these borders of thoughts and fucking, that infiltrates all of those five things you were just thinking about.

And all of a sudden, those five things are no longer even possible because those five things were infiltrated completely with shit that we don't even know what it is yet, right? and that's all they're doing. They are mass. It's basically like a mass psychosis, but it is a mass manipulation and mass confusion of a society. And that's what they're doing. They are breaking down societal environments. They are breaking down even cities even further than they were before, like New York and Chicago and San Francisco.

We have her own massive homeless crisis in the United States. And yet we do nothing to help them. And many of those homeless people, by the way, are vets. Vets, yeah, yeah. That served and fought for our country. Some of them lost their best friends and their lifelong friends, their battle buddies in war. They come home to where a country that should make sure that they're the most protected people of anybody, especially the ones that go and fight for our, quote unquote, freedom.

But, you know, they go over and do this for their country because they're prideful, they're patriots. They're people that are brave. They're people that want to do this. And yet those people, so many of those people, either kill theirself or they are homeless, and they have no help at all, hardly from the government. The VA system is a complete shit show of joke. But yet, all these illegal immigrants are coming over. I think it was last month we had the most in one month.

I think it was $250,000 just came through this past month. I think it was September. And yet they are getting debit cards, phones, hotels. Yes. Hotels. Everything. And that's why these cities are like, oh, well, you know, we're about to break because we just can't keep paying for all these hotels for all these immigrants. Why are you paying for hotels for illegal immigrants? You can't even pay for your fucking veterans that fought for your country. You do nothing for them.

You did nothing for them. Like, it just makes me sick. I understand that there are people in other countries that need help. I get it. But also, we need help. We need help more than anybody. some cases. There are places in this country that need help more anybody. Go to California and look

at the homeless problem there. Oh, it's ridiculous. But yeah, what are we doing? What are we doing? We know that we can't help our own people. So we're going to add to it. We're just going to bring in millions and millions of people and a large portion of those could be terrorists. And I guarantee

you are that hate our country. They want nothing more than destroy our country. Think about this. They're so worried about your kids and what they might see on You remember after 9-11 when they ushered in the Patriot Act to where they could basically spy on everything? Because the number one thing they wanted to do was protect the country from terrorism. And they had these yellow and green and orange threat levels every day based on who might have slipped over on an airline.

And now we have millions of people that we have no idea who it is coming across our border. Does that make any fucking sense? No, it doesn't. And I'm sorry I'm cussing so much. But we're screwed, guys. I don't know what the result's going to be. I mean, you know, the... And the problem is, this isn't happening everywhere around the world.

It is. I mean, I think the United States is really bad. And I think Europe, they're seeing the same thing. Yeah, I think in the United States is really bad. I mean, UK is pretty bad as well. I mean, UK and Canada, I know both those. And, you know, a lot of you guys have reached out to us from New Zealand or, um, uh, you God, other places.

I can't think right off top of my head, but you guys have reached out from many places and talked about your situation. But the problem is, too, this migration thing is not happening from countries right next to us. They're coming in through those countries, but there are people all over the world going through these countries illegally to come into our borders. And I think that's happening all around the world to mix everyone up so there is no, like, pride and country anymore. Yeah. So that we're all one world. And that's just not going to ever work. But, yeah, it will work for them.

It'll work for them. We'll be under the control of the one world government. And that is a bad, bad, bad, bad thing. Yeah. You know, it's one of those things I've always said. It's like I've always, and we've talked on this podcast many times, about, especially when we talk about UFO stuff, right? It's like the religion thing, the Bible and some of that.

And it's like, you know, and we've even had people who chat like when we talk about the Bible. We talked about it on what we talk about a lot on this podcast, right? And we don't ever talk about it in a way that's like, hey, you guys either believe this or you're going to hell. I don't think. I mean, I've had varied opinions over the past five years because I'm always back and forth. I don't know 100% of everything, right? But what I do know is like when you think about this new world system and this government, how everything is kind of going, it does go back. the Bible. And yes, there's obviously so much stuff in the Bible, in my opinion, that doesn't make

sense to me. But, you know, this type of whole thing in like Orwellian, tyrannical, one-world globalist system, which is what they're trying to incorporate here. I mean, this is nothing more than that. And I save this, and I hope that I have this. And I want to make sure that I mention this because there are other systems in place. Chad, people are going to get mad at you because you just cussed and now you're talking about religion. Yeah, but awesome. Come on, dude. Well, those people...

This happens every time. Well, those people are probably people that believe they're better than everybody, so whatever. And I literally... You just got to learn to... No, I don't got to learn anything. Yeah, you got to learn not to cuss. No, I'm very passionate about this, and I'm being myself, so... Yeah, that's true.

And Chad, that's just Chad. Okay, here it is right here. Okay, go ahead. The online safety bill is the U.K., which is enforced through fines of up to 18 million euros or 10% of global turnover or jail. They also have in the United States the Restrict Act, which people that violate the proposed rules can be fined of up to $1 million and imprisoned for up to 20 years in the United States, which is what they're going to do with the Online Restrict Act. the Canada government online streaming act up to 10 million fines for the first offense by corporation

a digital service act in the EU violations carry the threat of a fine of 6% of global turnover online safety act in Australia the penalty for non-compliance is 110,000 for individuals and 550,000 for companies and many of these bills also have imprisonment rules that are potentially going to be put in place

So, you know, listen, I mean, yeah, okay, I'm not a cuss on this podcast, but the reality is that someone needs to be cussing something. I mean, seriously, guys, this is our freedom. This is our future. Yeah, this is really scary. It definitely is really scary. And, you know, when we are talking about in the beginning, you know, there is no really solution to the problem. They either keep, you know, free speech or they come up with this little thing, the safety thing. that they're doing and they're going to stop all freedom of speech.

Yeah, tyrannizing everything. Yeah, you can't have one or the other. So what do you want? Do you want freedom of speech or do you want them to protect everyone's rights or whatever or, you know, try to protect people? Well, they're going for that, right? And so they're going to backdoor everything. And the government does this all the time.

And they're going to backdoor things that don't even belong in the back door. No. Anyways, guys, we're... Shut up, Chad. We are going to end the podcast on that one. But this song is called Love and Calibur, Nothing Like Them. I can't even talk anymore. Guys, we have so many episodes coming for you this month.

Oh, and by the way, if you're listening to Night, tomorrow we is going to be the emergency signal thing. October 4th. Yeah. If you've not listened to it, listen to it. Listen to it now. Yeah, listen to October 4th. All right, guys. Peace out till next time.

Stay free. And hopefully we're going to do, but we got to do something about that. Peace out, guys. I know that it's okay. Unlike my friends, you are nothing like them. Oh! How could they say I was broken in two since I met you made me come undone. Now I know that it's okay.

Unlike my friend. You are nothing like them I'm not broken I'm just split into Hope you find And got time I'm not broken Not broken, not broken, not broken