Decade after decade, a new wave of moral panic sweeps the nation, often accompanied by so-called “solutions” that blatantly erode our civil liberties. The roots of today’s surveillance state can be traced back to the fear that gripped the country on September 11, 2001, when the government seized on that fear to push through unconstitutional measures like The PATRIOT Act, real-time crime centres, and the TSA. By doing so, the government successfully imposed security measures that would have otherwise been met with fierce resistance. As the public grew increasingly comfortable with surveillance, it became remarkably easy to expand these measures from airports to city streets, fuelled by sensationalized stories of gang violence and other societal issues. Moreover, the divisive rhetoric surrounding illegal immigration has further accelerated the growth of surveillance, normalizing egregious privacy violations and touting technologies as solutions for non-violent offenses like littering and traffic infractions. Government programs are also utilizing surveillance to micromanage travellers’ behaviour under the guise of protecting the environment from climate change. The average citizen is being gradually conditioned to view the surveillance state as a necessary evil, with some even embracing it as a means to feel safer. However, this acceptance comes at a steep cost to our civil liberties, making it imperative to recognize the dangers associated with this expanding surveillance apparatus. Authorities are deliberately manipulating fear and misinformation to justify the growth of surveillance, and it is essential for citizens to stay informed about these tactics and demand greater transparency and accountability from their governments. The future of our civil liberties hangs in the balance, and addressing these issues is crucial before it’s too late.

The rapid expansion of the surveillance state is a complex issue, driven by a multitude of factors. One primary motivator is the age-old tactic of exploiting fear to consolidate power, a strategy that governments and institutions have long employed. By magnifying narratives surrounding crime, terrorism, and other threats, authorities can rationalize the enforcement of security measures that would typically face intense public backlash. Technologies like surveillance-enabled streetlights and Automatic License Plate Reader cameras are being promoted as solutions, but they pose serious risks to our civil liberties. As the surveillance state continues to grow, it is vital to expose the ways in which authorities are manipulating fear and misinformation to justify this growth. By doing so, we can demand greater transparency and accountability from our governments and work towards a future where our civil liberties are protected. The time to act is now, before the surveillance state becomes an irreversible reality. Citizens must take an active role in staying informed and pushing back against the erosion of their rights, or risk losing them forever. The government must be held accountable for its actions, and the true cost of the surveillance state must be laid bare. Only then can we hope to reclaim our civil liberties and build a future where freedom and security coexist.

The normalization of privacy violations

The surveillance state is actively eroding civil liberties, and its growth is being fueled by the normalization of privacy violations, which is a key factor in this alarming trend. As the government and other institutions increasingly use surveillance to control citizens’ behavior, they are severely impacting individual freedom and autonomy. By enforcing laws and regulations through surveillance, authorities are generating significant revenue, which is then being reinvested into further enhancing surveillance capabilities, creating a self-perpetuating cycle where the growth of surveillance leads to increased revenue, and subsequently fuels additional surveillance initiatives. The implications of the surveillance state on civil liberties are profound, and as citizens become more accustomed to being monitored, they are becoming less inclined to assert their rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the use of surveillance to generate revenue is raising additional concerns, as it creates a troubling incentive for governments to continue expanding surveillance measures.

Advanced technologies are being actively used by governments to jeopardize the privacy and safety of citizens, and this is a threat that requires immediate attention. The media is frequently overlooking this unprecedented risk, which echoes historical patterns seen around the world, and ignoring this issue could lead to severe repercussions for society. The technologies currently being used in our communities are mirroring those that oppress citizens in countries like China, where systems like social credit and ethnic cleansing are prevalent. Journalists and political dissidents who expose government corruption are suffering harsh penalties, including being denied basic resources, suitable housing, and the freedom to travel. Governments are using facial recognition technology to hunt down and execute political opponents, and entrusting such significant power to even small governments can be dangerous.

Advanced Technologies can Seriously Jeopardize the Privacy and Safety of its Citizens

Historical abuses, such as civil asset forfeiture, are revealing how easily a surveillance state can be misused, often under the guise of judicial protection. Artificial intelligence is identifying real crimes, but the evidence it provides is often unreliable, and another major threat is arising from the widespread collection of data without proper consent or oversight. The everyday activities of average Americans are being closely monitored and analyzed with minimal regulation, creating vulnerabilities not just from state agents but also from corporations that handle this data. Individuals are risking having their personal information exposed due to security breaches, often without ever having shared that information willingly. If someone becomes a target, state actors are compiling extensive details about their life while pursuing a crime to charge them with. It’s crucial to have an open conversation about surveillance, and focusing too much on certain fears has eroded personal freedoms, while other valid concerns—especially those related to government intrusion into citizens’ private lives—have largely gone unaddressed. The government must be actively held accountable for its actions, and citizens must be actively protected from the dangers of the surveillance state.

Authorities are actively building an all-encompassing digital surveillance system, with Digital Identity and Central Bank Digital Currencies serving as the core components that trap individuals in this framework. This system is being designed to replace traditional government-issued IDs with Digital IDs deeply rooted in unchangeable biometric data, including fingerprints, facial structures, and iris patterns, effectively creating an unbreakable link between individuals’ physical bodies and their digital identity credentials. By utilizing this biometric data, governments and financial institutions are rendering individuals’ bodies as passwords, establishing a total linkage between physical characteristics and digital identity. The United Nations and the Bank for International Settlements are openly acknowledging the integration of Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies to form the backbone of a new financial system, which requires the identification and verification of every participant through Know Your Customer protocols. Digital wallets are being tied to Digital IDs, which are mapped to individuals’ biometrics, creating a direct connection between financial transactions and biological data. Initiatives like Sam Altman’s WorldCoin are already rolling out prototypes of this system, encouraging people to scan their irises to obtain a unique identifier and a digital wallet.

Similarly, the UN’s Building Blocks program is forcing refugees to scan their irises to receive food rations, with the value being deducted from a wallet linked to their biometric ID. Under the guise of addressing the identity gap, authorities claim that digital IDs are necessary for the world’s poor to access essential services like banking and healthcare. However, the reality is that this system is being designed to exert total control over individuals, with their access to society and their own money being permissioned and revocable based on their compliance. This digital surveillance system is not about convenience; it’s about control, with the new global financial system being built on the foundation of total surveillance, where individuals’ every move is monitored and regulated. The implementation of Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies is a deliberate attempt to create a framework of control, where authorities can dictate who can participate in the financial system and who cannot, effectively rendering individuals’ autonomy and freedom obsolete.

Citizens are witnessing a dramatic expansion of the surveillance state, driven by the ruthless exploitation of fear, the gradual normalization of egregious privacy invasions, and the lucrative monetization of surveillance. This alarming trend poses a significant threat to civil liberties, with far-reaching consequences that imperil the very foundations of democracy. Governments must be held accountable for their actions, and citizens are demanding greater transparency and robust safeguards to protect their rights and freedoms. As the surveillance state continues to grow in power and scope, it is crucial that citizens remain vigilant and proactive, confronting these challenges head-on to prevent the erosion of their liberties. The clock is ticking, and the future of civil liberties hangs in the balance, making it imperative for citizens to take a stand against this insidious threat before it’s too late.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The rise of the surveillance state

The rise of the surveillance state is becoming increasingly evident, as cameras now monitor individuals walking through public streets and sidewalks in various urban and suburban settings. A simple stroll around the neighbourhood, complete with conversations, can easily be recorded if cities employ surveillance-equipped streetlights. Even front yards are not shielded from surveillance; neighbours with “smart” doorbells can share footage with law enforcement. This intrusion extends beyond city limits, as Automatic License Plate Reader cameras are cropping up along rural highways and county borders, while audio and video surveillance infiltrates remote regions like the Amazon Basin. With advancements in satellite technology, it seems unlikely that any corner of the globe will remain unmonitored in the future. The modern surveillance state wields unprecedented power, and the notion that there is no expectation of privacy in public no longer stands against the vast amounts of data being collected, stored, and analysed.

Despite the looming threats posed by this “Big Brother” phenomenon, critics often find themselves underrepresented in mainstream media. When news outlets do discuss citizen surveillance, they frequently frame it as a necessary solution, while glossing over the potential risks to civil liberties. So, why aren’t more citizens voicing concerns about these invasions of privacy, and in some cases, even endorsing them? One explanation may lie in the way these systems are marketed as protective measures for society, even though they may actually represent the greatest threats to freedom. The tactic of using fear to consolidate power is nothing new, and despite having more access to information than ever, citizens still find themselves susceptible to manipulation.

Each decade has brought its own wave of moral panic, often accompanied by “solutions” that encroach upon civil liberties. The justification for today’s surveillance state traces back to September 11, 2001, when fear stemming from those events led to the acceptance of unconstitutional provisions like The PATRIOT Act, real-time crime centers, and the TSA. The government managed to enforce security measures that would have faced strong resistance under normal circumstances. With the public increasingly accepting surveillance, it became easy to extend these measures from airports to city streets, fueled by sensational stories of gang violence and other societal issues. Additionally, divisive rhetoric surrounding illegal immigration has further driven the expansion of surveillance, normalizing privacy violations and promoting technologies as solutions for non-violent offenses such as littering and traffic infractions. Government programs are also leveraging surveillance to micromanage travelers’ behavior while claiming to protect the environment from climate change. The average citizen is gradually being conditioned to view the surveillance state as a necessary evil, with some even embracing it as a means to feel safer. However, this acceptance comes at a significant cost to civil liberties, making it crucial to recognize the dangers associated with this expanding surveillance apparatus. Authorities are manipulating fear and misinformation to justify the growth of surveillance, and it is vital for citizens to stay informed about these tactics and demand greater transparency and accountability from their governments. The future of civil liberties hinges on this awareness, and addressing these issues is essential before it’s too late.

The swift expansion of the surveillance state is a multifaceted issue, driven by various factors. A primary motivator is the age-old tactic of using fear to consolidate power, which governments and institutions have long employed. By magnifying narratives surrounding crime, terrorism, and other threats, authorities can rationalize the enforcement of security measures that would typically face public backlash. Technologies like surveillance-enabled streetlights and Automatic License Plate Reader cameras are promoted as solutions, but they pose serious risks to civil liberties.

The normalization of privacy violations

The normalization of privacy violations is another key factor in the surveillance state’s growth. As citizens grow accustomed to being constantly watched, they become less likely to challenge the expansion of surveillance. This trend is alarming, as it can result in a significant erosion of civil liberties and a shift toward a more authoritarian society. The government, along with other institutions, is increasingly using surveillance to control citizens’ behavior, which can severely impact individual freedom and autonomy. Furthermore, the use of surveillance to generate revenue raises additional concerns, as it creates a troubling incentive for governments to continue expanding surveillance measures. By enforcing laws and regulations through surveillance, authorities can generate significant income, which is then reinvested into further enhancing surveillance capabilities. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle where the growth of surveillance leads to increased revenue, which subsequently fuels additional surveillance initiatives. The implications of the surveillance state on civil liberties are profound. As citizens become more accustomed to being monitored, they may become less inclined to assert their rights and freedoms. Additionally, the micromanagement of behavior through surveillance can lead to a loss of individual autonomy, forcing citizens to conform to specific norms and expectations. The normalization of privacy violations can also erode trust in institutions and disrupt social cohesion.

Advanced technologies can seriously jeopardize the privacy and safety of its citizens

While many people focus on issues like gangs, littering, and drunk driving, they often miss other important threats that require our attention. A government that employs advanced technologies can seriously jeopardize the privacy and safety of its citizens. Unfortunately, the media frequently overlooks this unprecedented risk, which echoes historical patterns seen around the world. Ignoring this issue could lead to severe repercussions for society. The technologies currently being used in our communities mirror those that oppress citizens in countries like China, where systems like social credit and ethnic cleansing are prevalent. Journalists and political dissidents who expose government corruption often suffer harsh penalties, including being denied basic resources, suitable housing, and the freedom to travel. In more authoritarian regimes, such as Myanmar, governments have used facial recognition technology to hunt down and execute political opponents. Entrusting such significant power to even small governments can be dangerous. Historical abuses, exemplified by practices like civil asset forfeiture, reveal how easily a surveillance state can be misused, often under the guise of judicial protection. Even when artificial intelligence identifies real crimes, the evidence it provides is often unreliable. Another major threat arises from the widespread collection of data without proper consent or oversight. The everyday activities of average Americans are closely monitored and analyzed with minimal regulation, creating vulnerabilities not just from state agents but also from corporations that handle this data. Individuals risk having their personal information exposed due to security breaches, often without ever having shared that information willingly. If someone becomes a target, state actors can compile extensive details about their life while pursuing a crime to charge them with. It’s crucial to have an open conversation about surveillance. Focusing too much on certain fears has eroded personal freedoms, while other valid concerns—especially those related to government intrusion into citizens’ private lives—have largely gone unaddressed.

Partner of Facebook and Google Admits Smartphone Microphones Listen to Conversations

Smartphone Microphones Listen to Conversations before Showing Ads

A Partner of Facebook and Google Admits Smartphone Microphones Listen to Conversations Before Showing Ads. The website 404 Media references a marketing presentation that reveals the use of “Active Listening” software. This technology uses a form of AI to “obtain real-time intent data by listening to conversations.” The presentation was made by Cox Media Group (CMG), a telecom giant that is one of Facebook’s marketing partners. CMG claimed that Amazon, Facebook, and Google are clients using “Active Listening.” However, after the publication on 404 Media, Google removed CMG from its list of partners. Amazon stated that it does not use this technology. Meta (Facebook’s parent company) said it has begun reviewing its relationship with CMG to ensure the group hasn’t violated any terms of service. The capabilities of Cox Media Group to listen in on users became known in December 2023, but without detailed information. Allegedly, the eavesdropping is permitted by the terms of use of certain apps. But in a congressional hearing in 2018, Mark Zuckerberg claimed that they don’t Use Mobile Device Microphones to listen in on users. So Zucks lied.

Surveillance capitalism is turning human beings into raw material

If they are just gathering this information to show me products, it sounds like a nice service! The issue is when it’s weaponized into a system of total control which turns the control into the next source of profits. Surveillance capitalism has its roots in the early days of the internet, when companies like Google and Facebook exploited the “ungoverned spaces” of the digital realm. The dot-com bust, the success of Apple’s consumer-centric approach, and the surveillance-friendly environment created by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and CIA’s investments in the “war on terror” all contributed to the rise of surveillance capitalism.

Surveillance capitalism is a novel economic system that has emerged in the digital era. It is characterized by the unilateral claim of private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioural data. In this version of capitalism, predicting and influencing behaviour (political and economic) rather than producing goods and services is the primary product. This economic logic prioritizes extracting, processing, and trading personal data to predict and influence human behaviour by exploiting those predictions for various economic (marketing) and political objectives.

In essence, surveillance capitalism is turning human beings into raw material, but our data is extracted. That is the capital of today, big data is the new oil and then it’s used to try to manipulate us.

Surveillance Capitalism Is Powering the Modern Surveillance State

In many cases, surveillance capitalism merges with psywar tools and technologies to power the modern surveillance state, giving rise to a new form of Fascism (public-private partnerships) known as techno-totalitarianism. Leading corporations employing the surveillance capitalism business model include Google, Amazon, and Facebook. Surveillance capitalism has now fused with the science and theory of psychology, marketing, and algorithmic manipulation of online information to give rise to propaganda and censorship capabilities that go far beyond those imagined by the 20th-century predictions of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell.

There is loss of autonomy. Surveillance capitalism erodes individual autonomy as users are manipulated and influenced by algorithms designed to predict and shape their behaviour. It’s a threat to democracy. The concentration of power in the hands of surveillance capitalists undermines democratic processes, as they use their influence to shape public opinion and policy. It also leads to economic inequality: The wealth generated by surveillance capitalism exacerbates economic inequality, as those who own and control the data and algorithms reap the benefits while users are exploited as free commodities.

Covid was meant to normalize biometric surveillance

But it even goes beyond that. Advisor to the WEF, Yuval Noah Harari admitted that Covid was critical because this is what convinces people to accept total biometric surveillance, which will enable the Stalins of the 21st century” to monitor and analyse the brains of all the population, all the time.

In summary, the expansion of the surveillance state is a complex issue influenced by various factors, including the exploitation of fear, the normalization of privacy invasions, and the monetization of surveillance. The consequences for civil liberties are significant, making it imperative to acknowledge the risks associated with this trend. Citizens must remain vigilant, demanding greater transparency and accountability from their governments to safeguard their rights and freedoms. The future of civil liberties depends on this awareness, and it is essential to confront these challenges before it becomes too late.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The weaponisation of laws and the media, and we ought to start with the UK, and the highly controversial Online Safety Act. So, the Online Safety Act is legislation that gives the relevant Secretary of State the power to designate and suppress or record a wide range of online content that is “illegal” or “deemed harmful to children”.

The Act creates a new duty of care for online platforms, requiring them to take action against illegal content, or legal content that could be “harmful” to children where children are likely to access it. Platforms failing this duty would be liable to fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher. It also empowers Ofcom to block access to particular websites. Ideally, the act is also supposed to oblige large social media platforms NOT to remove, and to preserve access to, journalistic or “democratically important” content such as user comments on political parties and issues.

Then, the Act also requires platforms, including end-to-end encrypted messengers, to scan for child pornography, despite warnings from experts that it is not possible to implement such a scanning mechanism without undermining users’ privacy. To which the UK government has claimed that it does not intend to enforce this provision of the Act until it becomes “technically feasible” to do so. And then lastly, the Act also obliges technology platforms to introduce systems that will allow users to better filter out the “harmful” content they do not want to see… So this is a more idealistic presentation of what the Online Safety Act seeks to accomplish, and it is presented this way by the Labour-led UK government, so that anyone who opposes it can be dismissed as a child predator sympathiser and an enemy of progress. BUT, here’s what the Act fundamentally contributes, as far as trying to shift the jurisprudence in the UK is concerned.

The Online Safety Act hands sweeping and incredibly dangerous powers to the relevant secretary of state, allowing them to interfere directly with Ofcom’s operations including the authority to dictate the content of its so-called “codes of practice”. This thus represents a dangerous centralisation of power that compromises Ofcom’s supposed independence and opens the door to government control over online speech. And these powers, which can be exercised with minimal oversight and under vague emergency justifications, indicate a government with aspirations that are ultimately authoritarian and dystopian in nature.

THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT EXPOSES THE BIG-GOVERNMENT INCLINATIONS OF THE LABOUR PARTY

However, beyond the authoritarian and dystopian nature of the Online Safety Act, how the Labour-led government is going about with it, further exposes its big government inclinations. And the difference here is how the labour-led government is responding to the dissent resulting from the Act. More specifically, governments receive their operational mandate from the governed (at least that is how it should be). This means we measure a government’s political legitimacy and efficacy based on how well it enacts what the people demanded, as opposed to imposing its dictates on the people. This is why for instance, the UK government has an explicit obligation to implement Brexit because the majority of the country voted for it through the referendum, irrespective of what an incumbent government may think of Brexit.

HOWEVER, when the people of the UK signed a petition that has received over four hundred thousand signatures (as we speak) to repeal the “Online Safety Act”, the government’s response, in a nutshell, was “We hear you and know you’re upset, but think of the children” (which we’ll get to in a moment). But, this number of petition signatures is important because, in the UK, Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate – and so clearly, many people want to see repeals of the Online Safety Act.

More broadly, this petition was created by Alex Baynham, and the aim of the petition is stated as being based on the belief that the scope of the Online Safety act is far broader and restrictive than is necessary in a free society. And that those signing it think that Parliament should repeal the act and work towards producing proportionate legislation rather than risking clamping down on civil society.

 Well, on the 28th of July, the UK government responded – and they gave a categorically big government response. The government stated that (quote): “It is right that the regulatory regime for in-scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users.” (end quote). In other words, the government concedes to the correctness of the mandate that citizens are demanding it fulfil in light of proportionality, and not infringing on freedoms in a free society.

BUT, then immediately after the government states in its response that (quote): “The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.” It continues to say “Proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is in-built into its duties. As regulator for the online safety regime, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements. Duties in the Communications Act 2003 require Ofcom to act with proportionality and target action only where it is needed.” In other words, the government concedes that proportionality is important not to infringe on rights in a free society, but insists that the expanded oversight powers through the Online Safety Act are necessary to protect this free society from itself.

But, this is nothing short of an aggravating and patronising response! If there is no enjoyment of free speech, then there is no free society period! Free speech is quite literally the yardstick, because it is the difference between constructive and open debate on matters of importance, and fearing to speak up. And if society is governed by a fear to speak up, then what they say is likely not a reflection of what they stand for but of what they think is acceptable to the incumbent government. Therefore, it can never be acceptable for a government to claim to protect a society by expanding its powers to govern speech – proportionately or disproportionately. Free speech is an inalienable freedom, that no government has the power to limit or take away because it is God-given… Well, Zia Yusuf says Reform UK (the party led by Nigel Farage) will repeal the Online Safety Act.

IRONICALLY, THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT INDIRECTLY PROTECTS PAEDOPHILES

Now, I alluded to the fact that the labour-led government keeps insisting that this act is about protecting the children – and so, let’s refute this, because it is not true. For instance, Sammy Woodhouse reported that as they try to share the horrific stories of child rape and the government cover-up, the UK’s Online Safety Act has done nothing but silence the victims. And this is due to the conduct of the very same government that claimed to launch a national inquiry, and whose leader said that speaking out about the abuse of children is “jumping on a far-right bandwagon.

Similarly, conservative UK journalist Smantha Smith went on TV to discuss Pakistani grooming gangs in her Labour-run hometown of Telford. The next day, officers banged on her door, wanting to shut her up for exposing them. And so, with the Online Safety Act now in force, no one is safe. Because if it happened to her, it can happen to anyone. But, the big irony I’d like to highlight here is that the UK government’s implementation of the Online Safety Act seems to protect paedophiles, and those inculcated in the grooming gangs – all while they claim that this is about protecting children. It simply is not true, and here is journalist Samantha Smith discussing her case.

REV DR CHRIS OYAKHILOME DSc. DSc. DD.: “SUE THEM; YOU WILL WIN”

Thankfully, many in the UK – much like those who started the petition we’ve just discussed – are not quiet, or merely accepting the status quo. Many are gearing up to challenge the state though the requisite avenues of formal legal recourse – including through suing the relevant parties! For instance, free speech lawyer Preston Byrne told GB News why he’s planning to sue Ofcom over the Online Safety Act.

MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATIONS CREATED THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Now, while this discussion focuses on the UK’s Online Safety Act, it is  important not to lose sight of the fact that this problem is not only global, but was often driven by a desire to ultimately apply restrictive provisions on Elon Musk’s X platform. And this is made apparent as information has also come to the fore regarding the historical and intensive involvement of military and intelligence organisations in the war on free speech! More specifically, a whistleblower last year provided us with a trove of documents proving that US and UK military & Intelligence employees and contractors adapted counter-terrorism tactics developed abroad, including censorship, debanking, and cross-platform bans – really rivalling or exceeding the Twitter Files and Facebook Files in scale and importance. Now, they describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, that officially began as the volunteer project of data scientists and defence and intelligence veterans but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The CTI League documents offer the missing link answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Combined, they offer a comprehensive picture of the birth of the “anti-disinformation” sector, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex. Now, the whistleblower’s documents describe everything from the genesis of modern digital censorship programs to the role of the military and intelligence agencies, partnerships with civil society organisations and commercial media, and the use of sock puppet accounts and other offensive techniques.

But, here’s where it gets even more interesting: the CTIL files reveal that US and UK military contractors developed and used advanced tactics — including demanding that social media platforms change their Terms of Service — to shape public opinion about Covid-19, and that getting content removed was just one strategy used by the Censorship Industrial Complex. The CTI League, which partnered with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), THEN aimed to implement something called “AMITT,” which stood for “Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques.” Kindly have a listen to Michael Shellenberger as he exposes a key figure involved in this operation, and her name is Renée Teresita and even the “partnerships” that were formed to create this censorship industrial complex.

THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX’S WAR ON X AND ELON MUSK

Well, so the Department of Homeland Security’s AMITT project was ultimately, therefore, a disinformation framework that included many offensive actions, including discrediting alternative media, using bots and sock puppets, pre-bunking, and pushing counter-messaging AND working to influence government policy. This emphatically tells us that politicians are (once again) not the primary actors behind the war on free speech!

In any case, the specific counters to so-called “disinformation” in AMITT and what became its successor framework, called DISARM, include many tactics that we have observed, such as: “name and shame people who disagree with the narrative of the government of the diabolical conglomerates behind certain agendas, like the vaccine holocaust”; simulating misinformation and disinformation campaigns, AND “using banking to cut off access”, which is something Europe is considering against Elon Musk! In addition, the DISARM framework has included creating policy that makes social media police disinformation”. This especially became notable with the opposition towards X – which has exposed that the war on X and Elon Musk itself has a broader history involving diabolical non-state actors – in particular the UN.

Paul Coleman points out a terrible irony there towards the end, which is that these diabolical tactics aimed at censorship are coming from the people who pretentiously parade themselves as being in the front seat of defending free speech. Which is why I always tend to emphasise that it is a mistake to assume that the state is not an absolute moral actor or a yardstick to measure ethical conduct, especially when we consider that atrocious policies like slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were all legal!

And true to form, in the status quo entities like the EU are weaponising laws against Musk and the X platform in order to fabricate justification for aggressive actions towards Musk. For instance, you’d recall that the European Union sent a letter to Elon Musk, demanding him to censor Donald Trump during their interview in early August 2024, ahead of the US presidential election in November. The EU proceeded to threaten Musk with legal consequences if he does not prevent the spread of what they label as “disinformation.” But, even that threat followed a pattern of autocratic figures looking to have more censorship on the X platform, in light of what they say is a problem consistent with the ills of what they have defined as mis and dis information. And so, what we are seeing now is that in addition to the EU feeling comfortable demanding censorship in a US election to comply with the Digital Services Act, the UK is continuing on a similar trajectory.

THE CHURCH IS NOT IGNORANT OF THE ENEMY’S DEVICES

But ultimately, the UK Online Safety Act represents a digression from Godly Wisdom – especially when we consider that free speech is a God-given right, and we observe in the Scriptures that God respects the choice of men, because love connotes free will.

And so, this highlights the significant shift in social narrative in Europe, and the gist of the spiritual war in today’s discussion; which is that when such laws are made in the UK, it is not the Wisdom of God and Scriptures that are at the fore of the discussion, rather it is diabolical activities of witches in the UK, and something must be done.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso